On 5/21/2019 11:16 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
> Not Red Hat:
> Claudiu Belu -> Inactive?
> Matt Riedemann
> John Garbutt
> Matthew Treinish

Sean McGinnis is on the release management team which is a (grand)parent
group to nova-stable-maint and Sean reviews nova stable changes from
time to time or as requested, but he's currently in the same boat as me.

>
> Red Hat:
> Dan Smith
> Lee Yarwood
> Sylvain Bauza
> Tony Breeds
> Melanie Witt
> Alan Pevec > Chuck Short
> Flavio Percoco

Alan, Chuck and Flavio are all in the parent stable-maint-core group but
also inactive as far as I know. FWIW the most active nova stable cores
are myself, Lee and Melanie. I ping Dan and Sylvain from time to time as
needed on specific changes or if I'm trying to flush a branch for a release.

> Tony Breeds
>
> This leaves Nova entirely dependent on Matt Riedemann, John Garbutt,
> and Matthew Treinish to land patches in stable, which isn't a great
> situation. With Matt R temporarily out of action that's especially
> bad.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. What you mean is that it leaves
backports from Red Hat stuck(ish) because we want to avoid two RH cores
from approving the backport. However, it doesn't mean 2 RH cores can't
approve a backport from someone else, like something I backport for example.

>
> Looking for constructive suggestions. I'm obviously in favour of
> relaxing the trifecta rules, but adding some non-RH stable cores also
> seems like it would be a generally healthy thing for the project to
> do.

I've started a conversation about this within the nova-stable-maint team
but until there are changes I think it's fair to say if you really need
something that is backported from RH (like Lee backports something) then
we can ping non-RH people to approve (like mtreinish or johnthetubaguy)
or wait for me to get out of /dev/jail.

--

Thanks,

Matt