Module owner and peerage refresh?
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Pidgeot18 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 11 18:41:16 UTC 2014
On 7/11/2014 11:59 AM, Mike Conley wrote:
> Hey tb-planning,
> This came up in our last weekly meeting, and I wanted to kick off a
> thread about it.
> Basically, there was the notion that it's possible our list of module
> owners and peers is slightly out of date. There are some folks on that
> list who are no longer active, and unlikely to become active again. We
> should probably remove them from the list.
> There are also folks who probably could or should be on that list, in
> one or more places.
> And there are also folks who are on that list who could probably use
> some help for their position.
> So how do we feel about refreshing the list, and finding some new owners
> and peers for various things?
After thinking about it for a bit, there are roughly three distinct
categories of ownership:
1. Technical, people who can r+/r- patches. A good example here, I
think, is my relationship to MFBT: because of my knowledge of C++11, I
can definitely ascertain the correctness of C++11 polyfills, and thus I
get asked to review a few patches in MFBT in that regard. That doesn't
really mean I'm qualified to make decisions about design or direction in
2. Design. This is a bit difficult for me to define [you'll know it when
you see it!]. I suppose a working definition is people who are qualified
to make comments on something like "I have a crazy idea, what do you think?"
3. Vision. To a degree, this is larger than just modules (although I
suppose the "modules" I'm thinking about are actually submodules...),
and this is certainly an area that we've failed to had any leadership
people take up as a community.
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist
More information about the tb-planning