Hi all,

Thanks to all who have commented on this proposal so far. I've edited the original document to try and incorporate all feedback gathered so far (through the TSC meeting, this email thread and the TF-A tech call).

Please have another look and flag anything I might have missed:

https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-pr...

The major changes are:

== Removed concept of self-review == This is proving too controversial, several people do not want to allow self-review.

Roles of maintainer and code owner are still cumulative but cannot be both exercised for the same patch.

The exact method of dealing with review bottleneck is still to be decided. In addition to the current proposal of increasing the maintainers pool, the most popular alternatives mentioned so far are:

- Set a minimum wait time for feedback before a patch can be merged without any further delay.

- Mandate distinct reviewers for a patch.

== Enhanced the section "Patch contribution Guidelines" == Mentioned that patches should be small, on-topic, with comprehensive commit messages.

== Added a note about how to deal with disagreement == If reviewers cannot find a common ground, the proposal is to call out a 3rd-party maintainer.

== Removed "out-of-date" platform state == Squashed it into "limited support" to reduce the number of states.

== Removed "orphan" state from platform support life cycle == This concept is orthogonal to the level of functionality. Added a note in the "Code Owner" section instead.

== Per-project guidelines as a complementary document == Added a list of things that it would typically cover.

== Added requirement on fully supported platforms to document the features they support ==

== Added todo mentioning that the proposal might cover branching strategies in the future ==

The full diff may be seen here:

https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/phriction/diff/73/?l=4&r=5

This proposal is still open for discussion at this stage and further feedback is most welcome!

Regards, Sandrine