David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:22 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> At the moment, all reviewers and maintainers have to be appointed by the >> Steering Committee. I wonder if we could add a second, more >> community-based >> route: someone can be appointed as a reviewer or maintainer with the >> agreement >> of a given number of people who already have an equal or greater remit. >> >> It's already possible for reviewers or maintainers to defer to the >> opinion of someone they trust and rubber-stamp that other person's >> review or patch. Having the ability to appoint the other person as a >> co-reviewer or co-maintainer of that area is really just replacing >> patch-by-patch trust with a more ongoing trust. >> >> If that seems a bit woolly, and if a more formally defined process >> seems necessary, then how about this strawman: >> >> * Someone can be nominated to be a reviewer of an area by sending a >> private email to every reviewer and maintainer who covers a non-strict >> superset of that area. The nomination is approved if it is supported >> by at least two such reviewers or maintainers and if there are no >> objections. People would be given at least a week to respond. >> >> * The process would be the same for maintainers, with the same set of >> addressees, except that there must already be at least one maintainer >> for that area and, in addition to the previous requirements, all such >> maintainers must be in favour. >> >> (So if the area is maintained by one person, the nomination would >> need the support of that maintainer and at least one reviewer of a >> wider area. If the area is maintained by two of more people, they >> would all need to agree.) >> >> The idea with making it private is that it allows for a more honest >> discussion. But the convention could be to have a public discussion >> instead, if that seems better. >> >> Like I say, this would just be a second, alternative route. It would >> still be possible to ask the SC instead. >> >> In case it sounds otherwise, I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. >> I just don't remember this being discussed on-list for a long time, >> so it seemed worth bringing up. (Maybe it has been discussed at the >> Cauldron -- not sure.) >> > > What is a request to the GCC SC preventing? > > The GCC SC already requests the opinion of existing reviewers and > maintainers.
Like I say, the idea isn't to replace the existing system, just to provide a second, alternative path. But I suppose the question works both ways: does the SC need to be involved in every decision? There doesn't seem to be a specific need for the SC to act as the gatherer of opinions if the maintainers/reviewers are able to agree on a candidate directly amongst themselves. In cases like those, having the conversation directly would be a lighter-weight and more transparent process (especially if, as Richard suggests, the discussion happens in public). Thanks, Richard
