On 14/08/15 10:14 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:On 14/08/15 10:42 -0400, Assaf Muller wrote:First I'd like to say that I recognize that this discussion isincredibly personal. Brandon and Russell, please do not be offended, but I know that I probably would be if this very public thread involved myself. That being said, please know that from my perspective this is *not* personal, rather I see this as a general discussion about the precedent that we are creating here. Responses in-line. On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka < ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: 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. This is where I'd disagree. I think in general teams pay too much attention to stats, which are incredibly easy to game. Case in point, with the current objections people have over Brandon and Russell being nominated, I could have waited 4-6 weeks and let them amass a plethora of review stats, but what would the point of that have been? None what so ever. I think the point here is that if someone is focusing on another project then it's debatable if they should become a core in the Neutron project itself. Very simply put, if someone is a core in a subproject and is doing a fantastic job, but that person is not truly involved in the Neutron project itself, then that person becoming core in Neutron to me is dangerous. Before someone becomes core, I would like to be familiar with their expertise in Neutron so that I know if to trust their +2 or not on a given area in Neutron. If that person didn't really focus on Neutron then I have no way of being familiar with their expertise, thus no ability to trust them even if I'm generally a trusting person.I'm not really familiar with Neutron's workflow but as an outsider and also based on my experience from other projects, the separation of concerns from a review perspective is very useful. Teams that govern several projects are be better off giving reviewing rights to folks in a per-project basis rather than doing it cross-team. I'd go as far as saying that folks with review rights in the server don't necessarily need to have review rights in smaller projects. The reason I'm saying this is because I believe that reviewer rights is not a prize but a volunteer job. The moment I'm asked whether I want to join a reviewers team in a project, I gotta be honest with what my available time will allow me to do. What you just said is what I've been trying to emphasize my entire time as PTL: Reviewing is a duty, not a prize. The thing we're discussing here is the issue of when to give someone +2 rights. I'm arguing in favor of a web of trust system, which is what we have with Lieutenants. I'm also saying that I'm a proponent of elevating folks who want to take on the duty and letting them do that before they spend a month building up stats. This is not an opinion shared by everyone I realize, but it's my opinion. Like I've said in this thread, the entire system is built on trust. We as a community need to trust more and rely on that trust. I feel as if I've spent my PTL time trying to build that up and instill this value into the Neutron community. The results speak for themselves at this point, but I'm proud of what *we* as a community have built here.
Different projects follow different rules. Some projects favor stats, others favor enthusiasm and try to build a stronger community based on that. I just wanted to say that I personally favor building a web of trust rather than relying *just* on stats! Flavio
Kyle To what I just said, I'd also add the familiarity with the code-base, etc. Just my $0.02, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco__________________________________________________________________________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
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpqcBa2YEmN5.pgp
Description: 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
