Re: Maintainer nominations
Matthew Sykes
For the record, I am not in favor of extracting the documentation. I strongly feel that the doc and the code should live together where feasible. My perspective is that lowering the barriers to contribute is far better than segmenting the ecosystem into a number of fiefdoms. If we want doc changes to only require a single doc review, we should state that's the desired process and put a technology plan in place to make that happen. With that, a few comments to Dave's note: > As Fabric has grown the sets of maintainers has naturally diverged across the fabric-* repos. The core Fabric maintainers are naturally different from the Fabric CA maintainers, the Java SDK maintainers, the Node.js SDK maintainers, etc. The repositories were not separated because they had different maintainer pools; they were separated because, in most cases, they use fundamentally different implementation and CI processes. I'll also note that each of these contain their own documentation tree. (There's a docs folder in CA and API documentation is part of the code in node and Java.) Are you proposing we split all of these out as well? > It has been challenging to get a majority of core Fabric maintainers to weigh in on decisions, since only about half of the maintainers are active day-to-day. This becomes more of an issue with the recent introduction of the fabric-rfcs process, which requires a majority of Fabric maintainers to agree before taking on new enhancements. This is a problem of our own making. We have far too much process in place to make rapid forward movement. It's our choice to require a "majority" of maintainers and "2 mandatory reviews" to integrate things.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM David Enyeart <enyeart@...> wrote:
--
Matthew Sykes matthew.sykes@...
|
|