Re: [Xen-devel] Nominations for Xen 4.5 stable tree maintainer.

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>  Maybe we should just change the
>> document to clarify that an election is only needed if the previous
>> maintainer steps down, which is what I think the intention really was.
>
> Seems reasonable to me, presumably some existing mechanism (i.e. common
> sense...) exists if the incumbent goes off the rails or disappears
> without resigning etc.


Ian, 

thanks for digging out the link. Looking through the thread we said, the
consensus seems to have been to handle stable tree maintainers like
maintainers. "Each stable branch has a maintainer who is
nominated/volunteers according to the Maintainer Election process
described in the project governance document" doesn't imply a formal
election. The governance document states

* Nomination: A maintainer should nominate himself by proposing a patch to
the MAINTAINERS file or mailing a nomination to the project's mailing
list. Alternatively another maintainer may nominate a community member. A
nomination should explain the contributions of proposed maintainer to the
project as well as a scope (set of owned components). Where the case is
not obvious, evidence such as specific patches and other evidence
supporting the nomination should be cited.
* Confirmation: Normally, there is no need for a direct election to
confirm a new maintainer. Discussion should happen on the mailing list
using the principles of consensus decision making. If there is
disagreement or doubt, the project lead or a committer should ask the
community manager to arrange a more formal vote

So I would propose to replace

"Each stable branch has a maintainer who is nominated/volunteers according
to the Maintainer Election process described in the project governance
document. This will resulting in the MAINTAINERS file in the relevant
branch being patched to include the maintainer."

with


"Each stable branch has a maintainer who is nominated/volunteers according
to the Maintainer Election process described in the project governance
document. This means that the stable branch maintainer nominates himself
or is nominated by another maintainer on the mailing list or through a
patch to the MAINTAINERS file on the relevant branch. The principles of
consensus decision making are applied, unless there is disagreement, in
which case a formal election may be needed. The MAINTAINERS file in the
relevant branch will be patched to include the stable branch maintainer."

That would mean that we don't have to go through this discussion again for
4.6.

Lars


On 07/01/2015 12:17, "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:59 +0000, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/01/2015 11:26, "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 11:15 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >> 
>> >> Per http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Maintenance_Releases:
>> >> "Each stable branch has a maintainer who is nominated/volunteers
>> >>according to the Maintainer Election
>> >>  process described in the project governance document
>> >>[http://www.xenproject.org/governance.html].
>> >>  This will resulting in the MAINTAINERS file in the relevant branch
>> >>being patched to include the maintainer."
>> >> 
>> >> For the past year or so Jan Beulich has been the stable tree
>>maintainer.
>> >> 
>> >> Since Xen 4.5 has branched that opens up a new stable tree and we can
>> >>also
>> >> stop maintaining Xen 4.3 stable tree.
>> >> 
>> >> The nominations are open - please volunteer yourself. In case nobody
>> >> volunteers I can also take the role.
>> >> 
>> >> I ask folks to finish voting/nominating by Jan 14th so that when Xen
>> >>4.5 comes
>> >> out we have an viable stable tree maintainer.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure how voting is supposed to proceed with multiple
>>nominations
>> >(and with the deadline for nominations apparently being the same as for
>> >voting), 
>> 
>> Actually, it is questionable whether there are multiple nominations.
>> Andrew said "If Jan wants a break, I would be happy to volunteer."
>
>True, and Konrad said "if nobody else...".
>
>Still, my +1 for Jan stands.
>
>> I am also not convinced that we need an election, unless the existing
>> maintainer wants to steps down. We never had one in the past. And we
>>don't
>> have an explicit nomination for Release Managers unless the existing RM
>> steps down.
>> 
>> I can't find the mailing list discussion which led to
>> http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Maintenance_Releases (the
>>link
>> in the change history seems to be wrong).
>
>http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-11/msg01391.html
>perhaps?
>
>>  Maybe we should just change the
>> document to clarify that an election is only needed if the previous
>> maintainer steps down, which is what I think the intention really was.
>> 
>
>Seems reasonable to me, presumably some existing mechanism (i.e. common
>sense...) exists if the incumbent goes off the rails or disappears
>without resigning etc.
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel