On 03/06/2025 20:41, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:23 PM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > wrote: > >> 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). >> > > What is not working with the current system? What is this fixing? >
There is no formal way of requesting/tracking requests sent to the SC. It relies on sending private mail to individuals since the SC lacks a formal contact email. Frequently those meet with no response or need to be repeatedly sent/pinged. There's also little transparency as to the progress of requests - you fire something off to a black hole and hope that some day it might be fired back out with a suitable response. Where can we see a list of issues the SC is considering. Where is the record of any resolutions to requests? I think it's fine for the discussions to be private, but there really needs to be more transparency as to what topics are being covered and what the resolutions are. > The GCC SC has not been notified of any problems with appointing > maintainers. Then consider this to be a notification. I know that it can take months for reviewers to be appointed, let alone maintainers. I brought a couple of issues up at the cauldron last year, but I see no sign that there's been any progress on them. Transparency of the SC is an issue at present. R. > > Thanks, David > > >> >> Thanks, >> Richard >>
