On 07/17/2013 11:41 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 07/17/2013 02:35 PM, John Griffith wrote: > <snip> >> Just to point out a few things here, first off there is no guideline >> that states a company affiliation should have anything to do with the >> decision on voting somebody as core. I have ABSOLUTELY NO concern about >> representation of company affiliation what so ever. >> >> Quite frankly I wouldn't mind if there were 20 core members from HP, if >> they're all actively engaged and participating then that's great. I >> don't think there has been ANY incidence of folks exerting inappropriate >> influence based on their affiliated interest, and if there ever was I >> think it would be easy to identify and address. >> >> As far as "don't need more" I don't agree with that either, if there are >> folks contributing and doing the work then there's no reason not to add >> them. Cinder IMO does NOT have an excess of reviewers by a very very >> long stretch. >> >> The criteria here should be review consistency and quality as well as >> knowledge of the project, nothing more nothing less. If there's an >> objection to the individuals participation or contribution that's fine, >> but company affiliation should have no bearing. > > +1 > > The people that do great work on reviews, should really be your review > team, regardless of affiliation.
+1 (also +1 to what Mark and Dan said) FWIW - _all_ of the core members of the Infra team were HP for quite a while - and everyone on the team was quite good about always wearing their upstream hat. We're split 50/50 now - HP and OpenStack Foundation. I'd LOVE more diversity, but we would certainly die if we had a diversity requirement. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
