Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 1/1] Maintainers.txt: Update based on active community members

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 10/29/23 09:05, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Those are great questions. I also would like to understand:
>
> 1) What is definition of "actively participating in their roles"?

Here are the definitions of Maintainer and Reviewer, from
"Maintainers.txt":

  M: Package Maintainer: Cc address for patches and questions. Responsible
     for reviewing and pushing package changes to source control.
  R: Package Reviewer: Cc address for patches and questions. Reviewers help
     maintainers review code, but don't have push access. A designated Package
     Reviewer is reasonably familiar with the Package (or some modules
     thereof), and/or provides testing or regression testing for the Package
     (or some modules thereof), in certain platforms and environments.

> Is there any enforcement or just volunteer work?

I see the Maintainer role as a service to the community, with some
benefits granted in return. The "service" part should be clear. The
benefit is that you are kept in the loop, and sometimes (when you must)
you *can* say "no". (According to some seasoned reviewers, the one real
power of a maintainer -- not to be abused! -- is "saying no".) A
maintainer that's present helps set the focus, keep regressions out,
gives advice when needed, and so on.

Enforcement would be nice (haha), but it never works. You can't force
people to help, especially if their dayjob instructions oppose their
upstream community responsibilities. That's fine; in such cases my
request is always: if you can't help, then at least don't get in the
way, step down. Don't block people from doing their work by having them
wait for your feedback.

So volunteer work is fine, but as soon as the position grows "fangs" (=
a capacity to make others wait), then it becomes a promise, a
responsibility.

>
> 2) What is role and *responsibility* of Reviewer role? Is it
> documented somewhere?
> Per my observation, some assigned reviewers have never reviewed any
> patch in history or provided valuable feedback. To me, reviewer role
> seems more like a notification instead of really review something. Is
> that our purpose?

I'd say that's pretty close. A reviewer role is a request for keeping
the reviewer in the loop. Maintainers tend to appreciate that, because a
long-term reviewer may provide good insights, test results, and so on.
Trust is super important; a maintainer may push a patch based solely on
a reviewer's positive feedback, due to the latter's experience.

> While Laszlo contributed a lots in Tianocore community, he is really a
> good "reviewer", although he has no such title.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, I appreciate it!

I don't like to hoard titles. I'm sure titles are good for one's career,
but I always see the *promise* (the responsibility) to the community,
first and foremost, that a title encapsulates. It weighs heavily on me.
I loathe disappointing people. For me, not to bear a title is better
than to bear it and not to deliver on it / not to live up to it.

Laszlo



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#110259): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110259
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102245264/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/12367111/7686176/1913456212/xyzzy [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-