Xen project Mailing List

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 22:36, "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] Significant changes to decision
> >>making; some new roles and minor changes"):
> >> > Maybe Ian has some views on what is better from a theoretical
> >>viewpoint:
> >> > Voting mechanisms are a bit of a hobby of his
> >>
> >> The underlying problem here is that the reality is that the Xen
> >> Project's by-far most important subproject is the hypervisor; that it
> >> seems that the governance probably ought to reflect that; but that it
> >> is difficult to do this without special casing it or providing an
> >> objective metric of the hypervisor subproject's size.
> >>
> >> I don't think it is possible to square this circle. Our options are:
> >>
> >> 1. Explicitly recognise the hypervisor subproject as special.
> >> (This could be done by creating a new `superproject' maturity
> >> category, or simply by naming it explicitly.)
> >>
> >> 2. Do some kind of bodge which tries to reduce the impact of the
> >> potential unknown management practices of other subprojects
> >> (particularly, that they might appoint lots of leaders).
> >>
> >> 3. Restructure the hypervisor sub-project.
> >>
> >> The current proposal is (2) and has the virtue of not incentivising a
> >> subproject to appoint lots of leaders simply to get more votes
> >> overall. But it is still rather weak because it has to treat the
> >> hypervisor subproject as only one amongst many, so hypervisor leaders
> >> are under-powered and fringe leaders over-powered.
> >>
> >> Another way to deal with this would be to split the hypervisor
> >> subproject (3, above). For example, we could create subprojects for
> >> some subset of minios, osstest, xtf, various out-of-tree tools,...
> >> (many of which would have only one leadership team member).
> >>
> >> That would mean that the hypervisor-focused maintainers would get
> >> additional votes via their other "hats". (They would still get a vote
> >> in the hypervisor subproject, if they have a hypervisor leadership
> >> position too.)
> >>
> >> This is perhaps less unnatural. It still leaves fringe leaders
> >> somewhat over-powered: this time, leaders of more-hypervisor-related
> >> (or some such) fringe things, rather than leaders of
> >> less-hypervisor-related fringe things.
> >
> >Istinctively, I don't like the idea of splitting up the hypervisor
> >project in multiple projects.
>
> We could split out the following git repos: mini-os, osstest, raisin,
> livepatch-build-tools, xtf
> In terms of contributions per release, there is more activity than Windows
> PV Drivers, which are a separate project.

I see what you meant now. That could be OK.

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel

Hussain Fazul

Trainee - Network

ID:031

Technical Trainer College - Riyadh

www.ttcollege.adu.sa

M:00966567506089

E: hussainne031@xxxxxxxxx

Re: [MirageOS-devel] [PATCH v5 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes