Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:38:42AM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> I'm sorry but no. I don't think there's anything that requires extra
> patience than 2 (or even more) cycles without provaiding reviews or
> even any kind of active contribution.
> 
> I personally don't think adding new cores without cleaning up that
> list is something healthy for our community, which is what we're
> trying to improve here. Therefore I'm still -2-W on adding new folks
> without removing non-active core members.
> 
> >The questions I poised are still unanswered:
> >
> >There are a few members who have been relatively inactive this cycle in terms
> >of reviews and have been missed in Flavio's list (That list is not
> >comprehensive). On what basis have some of them been missed out and if we do
> >not have strong reason, are we being fair? Again, I would like to emphasize
> >that, cleaning of the list in such proportions at this point of time does NOT
> >look OK strategy to me.
> 
> The list contains the names of ppl that have not provided *any* kind
> of review in the last 2 cycles. If there are folks in that list that
> you think shouldn't be there, please, bring them up now. If there are
> folks you think *should* be in that list, please, bring them on now.
> 
> There's nothing unpolite in what's being discussed here. The proposal
> is based on the facts that these folks seem to be focused in different
> things now and that's perfectly fine.
> 
> As I mentioned in my first email, we're not questioning their
> knowledge but their focus and they are more than welcome to join
> again.
> 
> I do not think *counting* the stats of everyone makes sense here,
> we're not competing on who reviews more patches. That's nonsense.
> We're just trying to keep the list of folks that will have the power
> to approve patches short.
> 
> >To answer your concerns: (Why was this not proposed earlier in the cycle?)
> 
> [snip] ?
> 
> >The essence of the matter is:
> >
> >We need to change the dynamics slowly and with patience for maintaining a good
> >balance.
> 
> As I mentioned above, I don't think we're being impatient. As a matter
> of fact, some of this folks haven't been around in *years* so, pardon
> my stubborness but I believe we have been way to patient and I'd have
> loved this folks to step down themselves.
> 
> I infinitely thank these folks past work and efforts (and hopefully
> future works too) but I think it's time for us to have a clearer view
> of who's working in the project.
> 
> As a last note, it's really important to have the list of members
> updated, some folks rely on that to know who are the contacts for some
> projects.

As one of the people in the proposed group of cores, I agree with Flavio. This
is something routinely done in other projects, and I don't see why we should be
any different.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150304/c88e18dd/attachment.pgp>