On 2016-07-27 17:56:39 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > However, we may have some folks on the core team who have not > contributed a patch, since it is far more common to do reviews than > to submit changes there (more and more of the changes are being > automated). So, we probably need to expand the traditional definition > to also include the existing core review team (members of > requirements-core [1]), just to be safe. [...]
Easy enough to do for a one-off, but might want to consider officially adding them as extra-ATCs in governance down the road to make that more explicit. Our existing tooling is already adapted to that solution as well (for example, the current i18n voters are _all_ recorded as extra-ATCs because we haven't implemented API calls to Zanata for integrating it into the normal roll generation process yet). However, implicitly adding core reviewers seems a little weird as they're officially appointed by the PTL and so allowing the incumbent PTL to appoint (or remove) specific voters before their pending reelection... well anyway, I guess it's balanced out by there being a lot more committers to that repo than core reviewers on it. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ 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
