An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers

[David Edelsohn]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:23 PM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
wrote:

> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@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?

The GCC SC has not been notified of any problems with appointing
maintainers.

Thanks, David


>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>