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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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