<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 April 2015 at 12:52, Thierry Carrez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org" target="_blank">thierry@openstack.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
> Yes, these are not orthogonal ideas. The question should be rephrased to<br>
> 'which description do you identify the most with: core<br>
> developer/reviewer or maintainer?'<br>
<br>
</span>- Some people are core reviewers and maintainers (or "drivers", to reuse<br>
the openstack terminology we already have for that)<br>
- Some people are core reviewers only (because they can't commit 90% of<br>
their work time to work on project priorities)<br>
- Some people are maintainers/drivers only (because their project duties<br>
don't give them enough time to also do reviewing)<br>
- Some people are casual developers / reviewers (because they can't<br>
spend more than 30% of their day on project stuff)<br>
<br>
All those people are valuable. Simply renaming "core reviewers" to<br>
"maintainers" (creating a single super-developer class) just excludes<br>
valuable people.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Ok, I'd misunderstood the proposal further up the thread when I replied before. This sounds eminently sensible. There's certainly no hard at all in recognising large contributions other than reviews, and bug triage is almost becoming as large a job at various points in the cycle.</div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Duncan Thomas</div>
</div></div>