[nova][all][ptg] Summary: Same-Company Approvals

Adam Spiers aspiers at suse.com
Wed May 8 15:45:11 UTC 2019

Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote: 
>On 2019-05-07 15:06:10 -0500 (-0500), Jay Bryant wrote: 
>>Cinder has been working with the same unwritten rules for quite some time as 
>>well with minimal issues. 
>>I think the concerns about not having it documented are warranted.  We have 
>>had question about it in the past with no documentation to point to.  It is 
>>more or less lore that has been passed down over the releases.  :-) 
>>At a minimum, having this e-mail thread is helpful.  If, however, we decide 
>>to document it I think we should have it consistent across the teams that 
>>use the rule.  I would be happy to help draft/review any such documentation. 
>I have a feeling that a big part of why it's gone undocumented for 
>so long is that putting it in writing risks explicitly sending the 
>message that we don't trust our contributors to act in the best 
>interests of the project even if those are not aligned with the 
>interests of their employer/sponsor. I think many of us attempt to 
>avoid having all activity on a given patch come from people with the 
>same funding affiliation so as to avoid giving the impression that 
>any one organization is able to ram changes through with no 
>oversight, but more because of the outward appearance than because 
>we don't trust ourselves or our colleagues. 
>Documenting our culture is a good thing, but embodying that 
>documentation with this sort of nuance can be challenging. 

That's a good point.  Maybe that risk could be countered by explicitly 
stating something like "this is not currently an issue within the 
community, and it has rarely, if ever, been one in the past; therefore 
this policy is a preemptive safeguard rather than a reactive one" ? 

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list