<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hey core reviewers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was speaking with one of the core reviewers of Kolla today who said "only you can nominate people for core reviewer". By you, he meant me :) This is absolutely not true and I'd like to set the record straight on our three voting processes we have developed
over the last 3 years of the project's existence:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For core reviewer nominations:</div>
<div>If you have someone in mind you would like to propose, please contact the PTL via email or irc or cellphone or carrier pigeon. Feel free to make a short writeup about the individual's accomplishments or if you don't the PTL will. I will send it on or
craft a message for the mailing list. The core reviewer nominations while originating from my email address represent a nomination from the community, not me personally.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Requires majority of core reviewers to vote +1 with no veto vote within 1 week window. Voting closes early on unanimous vote or veto.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For policy matters:</div>
<div>If you want to trigger a policy change, please either send an email to the mailing list with the [kolla][vote] tag with your proposal or contact the PTL to execute the vote.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Requires majority of core reviewers to vote +1 within 1 week window. No veto is permitted. Voting closes early when majority is reached.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For technical specifications of a contentious nature or that are highly complex changes:</div>
<div>Kolla uses specifications as a last resort mechanism when other forms of communication have failed. Another use of specifications is to discuss highly complex topics that touch a whole lot of Kolla. Many times after the specification is created and discussed
in gerrit, it is abandoned as the review process itself sets a direction that breaks the logjam.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anyone may submit a specification for review.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Requires majority of core reviewers to vote +2. There is no time window. The final majority vote may workflow the specification. No veto (A vote of -2) is permitted.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>NB: The reason no veto is permitted on specs or policy matters is to break logjams. Democracies operate best when there are no veto abilities. This prevents dictatorships.</div>
<div>NB: The reason veto is permitted on core review nominations is related to how OpenStack operates and has a whole lot to do with trust.</div>
<div>NB: If the PTL is unresponsive (Ill, on vacation for 3 months in the bahamas, whatever) please feel free to take it upon yourself to execute the actions declared above that the PTL would typically do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>-steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>