[openstack-dev] core contributor vs reviewer (was: [keystone] Proposal to add Andy Smith to keystone core)
rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Apr 22 17:13:19 UTC 2013
On 04/22/2013 12:22 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> After spending some time on other projects, termie is back and
> contributing to keystone once more. For those that don't know him, he
> rearchitected & rewrote keystone's implementation during essex into what
> it is today. I'd be happy to see him rejoin the list of core
> contributors for Havana.
> Reviews: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:termie,n,z
> Contributions: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:termie,n,z
> He's also working on an OAuth 1.0a extension for Havana.
> Comments, +1's and termie-esque -2's appreciated within the week.
+1 fwiw, but this triggered another set of thoughts I wanted to bring up ...
I'd like to see us all try to speak about the core teams as review teams
as opposed to recognition of being an important contributor. I think
many people (and their managers) see membership on whatever-core as the
ultimate goal, and lack of membership on whatever-core meaning they are
not doing well enough.
In the case of nova, our review team (nova-core) is up to 20 members.
That's quite large and I'd like to avoid making it any bigger any time
soon. That means that there are quite a few people that do amazing work
contributing to the project, but are not in the subset that is
responsible for approving code. I don't want it to seem like their
contributions are not valued.
More information about the OpenStack-dev