Re: Volunteering as Commitfest Manager

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> So it makes sense to split that role between multiple people.

I agree that it'd be good to have multiple people supporting the CF.
I've been considering volunteering to be part of such a group for a
given CF.

> I volunteer to be the CF manager for Replication, and also for
> Performance.

I dislike the idea of splitting up the duties along these lines.
However, if others are willing to handle it that way and we can get
coverage for all the CF categories, I wouldn't object. The reason
that I dislike this is simply that the actual work of the CF manager
isn't really distinguished in any way based on if it's a Replication
patch or a Performance patch or some other patch. Most of the CF work
is about following-up with reviewers and authors and committers.

I feel this kind of "I'd prefer to be working on what interests me/what
I'm knowledgable in" concept is typically addressed through the
self-volunteer reviewers, where someone will mark themselves down as a
reviewer for a specific patch because it's what they're interested in.
Additionally, reviewers, when volunteering, can, and often do, ask for
specific kinds of patches (though it's usually driven more by 'size' or
'complexity' than category). That feels like a better place to put this
than at the CF manager level.

> Patches need an eventual committer anyway, so this is a reasonable way
> of having the process be managed by the eventual committer.

I also don't like the idea that committers, when supporting a
commitfest, would only be involved/working on specific categories of
patches. I feel that part of the idea of a commitfest is to have
individuals, particularly committers, looking at patches which fall
outside of what they're currently working on (since they can/could
commit those things more-or-less anytime).

My thinking (and I have no idea how others feel or if anyone's even
considered it this way) is simply that part of the responsibility of a
committer would be that they help get non-committer patches, which are
good for PG, submitted through the right process, etc, but which may
not be of specific interest to any given committer, committed. If a
patch is already of interest to a committer because it hits on a
hot-spot with them then that patch doesn't really *need* a CF to get
done.

Thanks,

Stephen