Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-07-27 22:06:43 +0000: > 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).
Sure, adding them to the extra-atcs list rather than adding custom rules to the tools makes great sense. > > 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. Yes, it is a bit unusual. I'd hate to have the core reviewers *not* have a vote, though, since they're the ones doing the work in that repo. Doug __________________________________________________________________________ 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
