On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 17:40, Balázs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer@est.tech> wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:09, Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
---- On Mon, 25 May 2020 04:31:41 -0500 Sylvain Bauza <sbauza@redhat.com> wrote ----
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:56 PM Balázs Gibizer
<balazs.gibizer@est.tech> wrote:
Hi,
[This is a topic from the PTG etherpad [0]. As the PTG time is intentionally kept short, let's try to discuss it or even conclude it before the PTG]
Last cycle we introduced the Feature Liaison process [1]. I think this is time to reflect on it. Did it helped? Do we need to tweak it?
Personally for me it did not help much but I think this is a fairly low cost process so I'm OK to keep it as is.
Cool with me. Maybe we could just tell it's optional, so we could better see who would like to get some mentor for them.
+1 on optional and keep it for new contributors which can be any time in the future. So at least if anyone asks we can tell this is how you can get some dedicated Core for your code review/help.
I see that those who responded so far are pretty aligned about the future of the Feature Liaison, so I proposed an update for the Victoria spec template [1] to make this optional. Feel free to continue the discussion here or directly in the review.
We touched this during the PTG session yesterday. I think we are in agreement to make this optional. I made one more update to the spec template about finding a liaison. I think the template update patch [1] is ready to be merged. Cheers, gibi [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/730638
Cheers, gibi
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/730638
-gmann
-Sylvain Cheers, gibi
[0] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-victoria-ptg [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/