Open Stack

Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> [...]
> With all that said, here is the proposal I would like to set forth:
> 
> 1. Code reviews still need 2x Core Reviewers (no change)
> 2. Code can be developed by a member of the same company as both core
> reviewers (and approvers).
> 3. If the trust that is being given via this new policy is violated, the
> code can [if needed], be reverted (we are using git here) and the actors
> in question can lose core status (PTL discretion) and the policy can be
> changed back to the "distrustful" model described above.
> 
> I hope that everyone weighs what it means within the community to start
> moving to a trusting-of-our-peers model. I think this would be a net win
> and I'm willing to bet that it will remove noticeable roadblocks [and
> even make it easier to have an organization work towards stability fixes
> when they have the resources dedicated to it].
> 
> Thanks for your time reading this.

+1

There are so many ways to abuse strict rules that it's better to have a
loose, trust-by-default policy and a strong history of fixing the
mistakes and abuses whenever they arise.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)