(NB: I tagged [all] because it would be interesting to know where other
teams stand on this issue.)

Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ptg-train-governance

Summary:
- There is a (currently unwritten? at least for Nova) rule that a patch
should not be approved exclusively by cores from the same company. This
is rife with nuance, including but not limited to:
  - Usually (but not always) relevant when the patch was proposed by
member of same company
  - N/A for trivial things like typo fixes
- The issue is:
  - Should the rule be abolished? and/or
  - Should the rule be written down?

Consensus (not unanimous):
- The rule should not be abolished. There are cases where both the
impetus and the subject matter expertise for a patch all reside within
one company. In such cases, at least one core from another company
should still be engaged and provide a "procedural +2" - much like cores
proxy SME +1s when there's no core with deep expertise.
- If there is reasonable justification for bending the rules (e.g. typo
fixes as noted above, some piece of work clearly not related to the
company's interest, unwedging the gate, etc.) said justification should
be clearly documented in review commentary.
- The rule should not be documented (this email notwithstanding). This
would either encourage loopholing or turn into a huge detailed legal
tome that nobody will read. It would also *require* enforcement, which
is difficult and awkward. Overall, we should be able to trust cores to
act in good faith and in the appropriate spirit.

efried
.