I have no particular objection about removing these particular two previous active cores, however I do concern that when we start to build a new precedence, we should do it right which means we should have an agreed set of metrics that provides the objective qualification of the "core removal" process.

The original proposed qualification is "18 months no participation in meetings, no code contributions and no reviews", I would like that we could make the clarification that:

- Is it a consecutive 18 months period with the construed "absence criteria" met ?

- For the "absence criteria", could we settle upon a set of exhaustive metrics: no meeting, no code contribution, no review, no email discussion participation, anything more ?

- If there were a set of agreed "absence criteria"s, what are the logical connection between these pre-conditions ? Is it an "AND" (all of the pre-conditions shall be satisfied) or just "OR" (only one of the pre-conditions satisfies)

Once we have a concrete rule setup, we are good to go with a current core reviewer vote for the record of removing, as far as I understand :)

Due process is very important.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:40 AM Nadathur, Sundar <sundar.nadathur@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Sean Mooney <smooney@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:37 AM
>
> On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 00:17 +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Big +1 for Brin and shogo's nomination and well deserved :)
> >
> > I'm a little bit concerned over the 18 months period. The original
> > rule we setup is volunteer step down, since this is a small team we
> > want to acknowledge everyone that has made significant contributions.
> > Some of the inactive core reviewers like Justin Kilpatrick have moved
> > on a long time ago, and I don't see people like him could do any harm to
> the project.
> >
> > But if the core reviewer has a size limit in the system, that would be
> > reasonable to replace the inactive ones with the new recruits :)
> it is generally considerd best pratice to maintian the core team adding or
> removing people based on there activity. if a core is removed due to in
> activity and they come back they can always be restored but it give a bad
> perception if a project has like 20 core but only 2 are active. as a new
> contibutor you dont know which ones are active and it can be frustrating to
> reach out to them and get no responce.
> also just form a project healt point of view it make the project look like its
> more diverse or more active then it actully is which is also not generally a
> good thing.
>
> that said core can step down if they feel like they can contribute time
> anymore when ever they like so and if a core is steping a way for a few
> months but intends to come back they can also say that in advance and there
> is no harm in leaving them for a cycle or two but in general after a period of
> in activity (usally more then a full release/6months) i think its good to reduce
> back down the core team.
> >
> > Just my two cents

As of now, Cyborg core team officially has 12 members [1]. That is hardly small.

Justin Kilpatrick seems to be gone for good; he didn't respond to my emails. Rushil Chugh confirmed that he is not working on OpenStack anymore and asked to step down as core. With due thanks to him for his contributions, I'll go ahead.

Those are the two cores I had in mind. Agree with Sean that it is better to keep the list of core reviewers up to date. With all the changes in Cyborg over the past 18 months, it will be tough for a person to jump in after a long hiatus and resume as a core reviewer. Even if they want to come back, it is better for them to come up to speed first.

Given this background, if there is any objection to the removal of these two cores, please let me know.

[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/admin/groups/1243,members

Regards,
Sundar

> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:19 PM Nadathur, Sundar
> > <sundar.nadathur@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > > Brin Zhang has been actively contributing to Cyborg in various
> > > areas, adding new features, improving quality, reviewing patches,
> > > and generally helping others in the community. Despite the
> > > relatively short time, he has been one of the most prolific
> > > contributors, and brings an enthusiastic and active mindset. I would
> > > like to thank him and acknowledge his significant contributions by
> proposing him as a core reviewer for Cyborg.
> > >
> > > Shogo Saito has been active in Cyborg since Train release. He has
> > > been driving the Cyborg client improvements, including its revamp to
> > > use OpenStackSDK. Previously he was instrumental in the transition
> > > to Python 3, testing and fixing issues in the process. As he has
> > > access to real FPGA hardware, he brings a users’ perspective and
> > > also tests Cyborg with real hardware. I would like to thank and
> > > acknowledge him for his steady valuable contributions, and propose him
> as a core reviewer for Cyborg.
> > >
> > > Some of the currently listed core reviewers have not been
> > > participating for a lengthy period of time. It is proposed that
> > > those who have had no contributions for the past 18 months – i.e. no
> > > participation in meetings, no code contributions and no reviews – be
> > > removed from the list of core reviewers.
> > >
> > > If no objections are made known by March 20, I will make the changes
> > > proposed above.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sundar