On 03/03/15 16:10 +0000, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
If it was not clear in my previous message, I would like to again emphasize that I truly appreciate the vigor and intent behind Flavio's proposal. We need to be proactive and keep making the community better in such regards.However, at the same time we need to act fairly, with patience and have a friendly strategy for doing the same (thus maintaining a good balance in our progress). I should probably respond to another thread on ML mentioning my opinion that the community's success depends on "trust" and "empathy" and everyone's intent as well as effort in maintaining these principles. Without them, it will not take very long to make the situation chaotic.
I'm sorry but no. I don't think there's anything that requires extra patience than 2 (or even more) cycles without provaiding reviews or even any kind of active contribution. I personally don't think adding new cores without cleaning up that list is something healthy for our community, which is what we're trying to improve here. Therefore I'm still -2-W on adding new folks without removing non-active core members.
The questions I poised are still unanswered: There are a few members who have been relatively inactive this cycle in terms of reviews and have been missed in Flavio's list (That list is not comprehensive). On what basis have some of them been missed out and if we do not have strong reason, are we being fair? Again, I would like to emphasize that, cleaning of the list in such proportions at this point of time does NOT look OK strategy to me.
The list contains the names of ppl that have not provided *any* kind of review in the last 2 cycles. If there are folks in that list that you think shouldn't be there, please, bring them up now. If there are folks you think *should* be in that list, please, bring them on now. There's nothing unpolite in what's being discussed here. The proposal is based on the facts that these folks seem to be focused in different things now and that's perfectly fine. As I mentioned in my first email, we're not questioning their knowledge but their focus and they are more than welcome to join again. I do not think *counting* the stats of everyone makes sense here, we're not competing on who reviews more patches. That's nonsense. We're just trying to keep the list of folks that will have the power to approve patches short.
To answer your concerns: (Why was this not proposed earlier in the cycle?)
[snip] ?
The essence of the matter is: We need to change the dynamics slowly and with patience for maintaining a good balance.
As I mentioned above, I don't think we're being impatient. As a matter of fact, some of this folks haven't been around in *years* so, pardon my stubborness but I believe we have been way to patient and I'd have loved this folks to step down themselves. I infinitely thank these folks past work and efforts (and hopefully future works too) but I think it's time for us to have a clearer view of who's working in the project. As a last note, it's really important to have the list of members updated, some folks rely on that to know who are the contacts for some projects. Flavio
Best, -Nikhil ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ From: Kuvaja, Erno <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:48 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Daniel P. Berrange Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations. Nikhil, If I recall correctly this matter was discussed last time at the start of the L-cycle and at that time we agreed to see if there is change of pattern to later of the cycle. There has not been one and I do not see reason to postpone this again, just for the courtesy of it in the hopes some of our older cores happens to make review or two. I think Flavio’s proposal combined with the new members would be the right way to reinforce to momentum we’ve gained in Glance over past few months. I think it’s also the right message to send out for the new cores (including you and myself ;) ) that activity is the key to maintain such status. - Erno From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 March 2015 04:47 To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations. Hi all, After having thoroughly thought about the proposed rotation and evaluating the pros and cons of the same at this point of time, I would like to make an alternate proposal. New Proposal: 1. We should go ahead with adding more core members now. 2. Come up with a plan and give additional notice for the rotation. Get it implemented one month into Liberty. Reasoning: Traditionally, Glance program did not implement rotation. This was probably with good reason as the program was small and the developers were working closely together and were aware of each others' daily activities. If we go ahead with this rotation it would be implemented for the first time and would appear to have happened out-of-the-blue. It would be good for us to make a modest attempt at maintaining the friendly nature of the Glance development team, give them additional notice and preferably send them a common email informing the same. We should propose at least a tentative plan for rotation so that all the other core members are aware of their responsibilities. This brings to my questions, is the poposed list for rotation comprehensive? What is the basis for missing out some of them? What would be a fair policy or some level of determinism in expectations? I believe that we should have input from the general Glance community (and the OpenStack community too) for the same. In order for all this to be sorted out, I kindly request all the members to wait until after the k3 freeze, preferably until a time at which people would have a bit more time in their hand to look at their mailboxes for unexpected proposals of rotation. Once a decent proposal is set, we can announce the change-in-dynamics of the Glance program and get everyone interested familiar with it during the summit. Whereas, we should not block the currently active to-be-core members from doing great work. Hence, we should go ahead with adding them to the list. I hope that made sense. If you've specific concerns, I'm free to chat on IRC as well. (otherwise) Thoughts? Cheers, -Nikhil ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ From: Alexander Tivelkov <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:26 AM To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations. +1 on both proposals: rotation is definitely a step in right direction. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:47:18AM +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 24/02/15 08:57 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >On 24/02/15 04:38 +0000, Nikhil Komawar wrote: > >>Hi all, > >> > >>I would like to propose the following members to become part of the Glance core > >>team: > >> > >>Ian Cordasco > >>Louis Taylor > >>Mike Fedosin > >>Hemanth Makkapati > > > >Please, yes! > > Actually - I hope this doesn't come out harsh - I'd really like to > stop adding new cores until we clean up our current glance-core list. > This has *nothing* to do with the 4 proposals mentioned above, they > ALL have been doing an AMAZING work. > > However, I really think we need to start cleaning up our core's list > and this sounds like a good chance to make these changes. I'd like to > propose the removal of the following people from Glance core: > > - Brian Lamar > - Brian Waldon > - Mark Washenberger > - Arnaud Legendre > - Iccha Sethi > - Eoghan Glynn > - Dan Prince > - John Bresnahan > > None of the folks in the above list have neither provided reviews nor > have they participated in Glance discussions, meetings or summit > sessions. These are just signs that their focus have changed. > > While I appreciate their huge efforts in the past, I think it's time > for us to move forward. > > It goes without saying that all of the folks above are more than > welcome to join the glance-core team again if their focus goes back to > Glance. Yep, rotating out inactive members is an important step to ensure that the community has clear view of who the current active leadership is. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|__________________________________________________________________________OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpwSTTslFwEP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
