On 10/2/2019 4:18 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
I like the >2-core idea, though the real difference would be asking for cores to consider "should we do this*in this cycle*" when they +2 a spec. Which is good and valid, but (I think) difficult to explain/track/quantify/validate. And it's asking each core to have some sense of the "big picture" (understand the scope of all/most of the candidates) which is very difficult.
Note that having that "big picture" is I think the main reason why historically, until very recently, there was a subgroup of the nova core team that was the specs core team, because what was approved in specs could have wide impacts to nova and thus knowing the big picture was important. I know that not all specs are the same complexity and we changed how the core team works for specs for good reasons, but given the years of "why aren't they the same core team? it's not fair." I wanted to point out it can be, as you said, very difficult to be a specs core for different reasons from a nova core. -- Thanks, Matt