Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-04 17:41:10 -0400: > On 02/06/18 13:23, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-01 15:19:46 -0400: > >> On 01/06/18 12:18, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> Is that rule a sign of a healthy team dynamic, that we would want > >>> to spread to the whole community? > >> > >> Yeah, this part I am pretty unsure about too. For some projects it > >> probably is. For others it may just be an unnecessary obstacle, although > >> I don't think it'd actually be *un*healthy for any project, assuming a > >> big enough and diverse enough team (which should be a goal for the whole > >> community). > > > > It feels like we would be saying that we don't trust 2 core reviewers > > from the same company to put the project's goals or priorities over > > their employer's. And that doesn't feel like an assumption I would > > want us to encourage through a tag meant to show the health of the > > project. > > Another way to look at it would be that the perception of a conflict of > interest can be just as damaging to a community as somebody actually > acting on a conflict of interest, and thus having clearly-defined rules > to manage conflicts of interest helps protect everybody (and especially > the people who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest but > aren't, in fact, acting on it).
That's a reasonable perspective. Thanks for expanding on your original statement. > Apparently enough people see it the way you described that this is > probably not something we want to actively spread to other projects at > the moment. I am still curious to know which teams have the policy. If it is more widespread than I realized, maybe it's reasonable to extend it and use it as the basis for a health check after all. > The appealing part of the idea to me was that we could stop pretending > that the results of our mindless script are objective - despite the fact > that both the subset of information to rely on and the limits in the > script were chosen by someone, in an essentially arbitrary way - and let > the decision rest on the expertise of those who are closest to the > project (and therefore have the most information), while aligning their > incentives with the needs of users so that they're not being asked to > keep their own score. I'm always on the lookout for opportunities to do > that, so I felt like I had to at least float it. > > The alignment goes both ways though, and if we'd be creating an > incentive to extend the coverage of a policy that is already > controversial then this is not the way forward. > > cheers, > Zane. > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
