[openstack-dev] The Evolution of core developer to maintainer?

Julien Danjou julien at danjou.info
Wed Apr 1 07:23:41 UTC 2015

On Wed, Apr 01 2015, Joshua Harlow wrote:

> +1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun stuff and
> those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the community to direct people
> if they can (but also the same job of that leadership to understand that they
> can't direct everyone; it is open-source after all and saying 'no' to people
> just makes them run to some other project that doesn't do this...).

+1, and as a casual contributor to a lot of different projects in
OpenStack, I think there is a lot of work to be done in that area.
The leadership is too scarce and too rarely available in general and
random people are discouraging others to contribute regularly with bad

> IMHO (and a rant probably better for another thread) but I've seen to many
> projects/specs/split-outs (ie, scheduler tweaks, constraint solving
> scheduler...) get abandoned because of cores saying this or that is the
> priority right now (and this in all honesty pisses me off); I don't feel this
> is right (cores should be leaders and guides, not dictators); if a core is
> going to tell anyone that then they better act as a guide to the person they
> are telling that to and make sure they lead that person they just told "no";
> after all any child can say "no" but it takes a real man/woman to go the extra
> distance...


And I'm not sure it's completely orthogonal to this thread actually.

>> It's sort of funny looking back over the years.  We used to complain
>> over and over that "we don't have enough reviewers", and that "reviewing
>> is crucial but under appreciated work".  Since then there's all sorts of
>> people striving to spend time doing reviews and provide in some cases
>> real constructive feedback.
>> Now we seem to be saying "reviewing isn't where it's at, anybody can do
>> that; bug fixes is the new coolness".  I think there are others way to
>> address this by the way, possibly more effective ways.  Heck, you could
>> even do commit credits; it costs five bug fixes to the overall project
>> before you can commit a feature (ok, don't take me seriously there).
>> Maybe I'm misinterpreting some of this, maybe there's something in
>> between.  Regardless I personally need a good deal more detail before I
>> form my opinion.

The problem I see now, is that random people who has very little
knowledge of $PROJECT or OpenStack as its whole jump in random review
and put a -1 in Gerrit. And then never remove it. And then your patch is
stuck for ever in review. Probably because we pushed people to review
patches, because we needed review, etc. Personally this is hitting me
back a lot and I'm getting more and more tired of that. How can you have
people reviewing code when then never even wrote a patch on the project?

I've _never_ used only review numbers to put people to core reviewer. We
had people trying to play the game that way, but I don't think you can
become a core reviewer any code if you never fixed a bug nor wrote a
patch in a project.

Julien Danjou
// Free Software hacker
// http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150401/b1902416/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list