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 owners and peers is slightly out of date.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 list who are no longer active, and unlikely to become active again.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 
MFBT.
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.

-- 
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist




More information about the tb-planning mailing list