-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Thanks a lot for the reply! I think it raises some good points here that I would like to clarify with other team members. I don't think those should interface with the current nomination run, so I spin it into a separate thread.
Some comments inline. On 08/12/2015 07:16 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote: >> [1] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90 > > > Shouldn't we use the link that shows neutron core repo > contributions only? I think this is the right one: > > http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron/90 > > >> Sure, if you want to look at only the neutron repo. I tend to >> look at people across all of our repos, which you may or may not >> agree with. I Neutron-core gerrit group indeed always had a vague definition. It worked fine before when we had just neutron and python-neutronclient repositories [even though client expertise stands out somewhat of usual server oriented development we do in neutron repo]. Now, with successful tree split into neutron, neutron-*aas, networking-*, + having a separate repo for specs; now that neutron is really a meta-project (a big tent they say), it feels to me that leaving neutron-core group as a "meta-group" that includes everyone who makes significant positive impact in any of those repos is not optimal. Having core team members that are judged solely on how they impact the core repo seems to me a better approach. Fostering more focused teams was one of the goals of tree splits, so I think we should take that gerrit advantage of having multiple repos more seriously. >> also think that it's worth looking at the statement of what core >> reviewers do found here [1]. Particularly what common ideals all >> core reviewers across Neutron share. I'll copy them here: > >> 1. They share responsibility in the project’s success. 2. They >> have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the >> project. 3. They spend their time doing what needs to be done to >> ensure the projects success, not necessarily what is the most >> interesting or fun. > The list is indeed a great one, and a lot of us, including - if not especially! - me, sometimes lag on some of those points. But doesn't the section talk about the big neutron tent, while voting permissions are still per-repo? >> Also, keep in mind how we nominate core reviewers now that we >> have a Lieutenant system [2]. That raises another interesting point that bothers me for some time. The section refers multiple times to 'Neutron core reviewers from the Lieutenant’s area of focus', but it does not say anything about reviewers [that I call 'obsolete'] who got into the core team before we had subteams and Lieutenants. Should they even have a say in subteam nominations? Everytime a nomination is proposed, I don't know whether I am in the position to put +1/-1. So the wording could be clarified here once we understand what the intended rules should be here. > >> Finally, it's worth all core reviewers having a look at what's >> expected of core reviewers here. [3] I should point out that the >> team is severely lacking in weekly meeting attendance at this >> point, but it's not a good thread to do that. Instead, I'll just >> point out what we as a team have codified as expectations for >> core reviewers. Not that it's in the core of the matter for the thread, but I wonder what reasonable attendance is, considering we have shifted schedule that makes some team meetings occur at time when you usually prepare to sleep or order yet another beer in a pub. Is participation once per two weeks resonable, or should core reviewers strive to make it every week? > >> Thanks! Kyle > >> [1] >> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h tml#neutron-core-reviewers >> >> [2] >> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h tml#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers >> >> [3] >> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h tml#neutron-core-reviewer-membership-expectations > >> > Ihar > > ______________________________________________________________________ ____ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ ____ > > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVzdD/AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57SHsH/2/oBqY4uJnfJxKnHI909mCn ttHu5j+Nvs7idb4opJm48UaHPcEGEea9ruzMz+usUtGY/vyYRhZ7svAENmAxKszR +d9Wkt0sxImpoCWkIEE7zS+EJNSxe+ps6F8vOpNnQO8RwuEOveQ0QXj85xgIToza LkFQiQUO+y4FIO0auXii/yAwwvj3euj+u2Q6oB1QnqVe+Mwf3xEnOrx5NPj4eLQ/ sA2vLZcAx1cDVQORqum7ZSYr5Xm799bhDNmGfCFSShQ3znar4At4MHqDn8jW0rFZ w3Wy9QVdr0QaY4xxSj1ktRh0SXbFGVD2pPCPPm4m/myJ3o5mnknhYe2mUiRLh88= =UJ1E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- __________________________________________________________________________ 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
