(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 .