(B) After some very productive discussion in the nova meeting and IRC channel this morning, I have updated the nova-specs patch introducing the "Core Liaison" concept [1]. The main change is a drastic edit of the README to include a "Core Liaison FAQ". Other changes of note: * We're now going to make distinct use of the launchpad blueprint's "Definition" and "Direction" fields. As such, we can still decide to defer a blueprint whose spec is merged in the 'approved' directory. (Which really isn't different than what we were doing before; it's just that now we can do it for reasons other than "oops, this didn't get finished in time".) * The single-core-approval rule for previously approved specifications is removed. (A) Note that the idea of capping the number of specs is (mostly) unrelated, and we still haven't closed on it. I feel like we've agreed to have a targeted discussion around spec freeze time where we decide whether to defer features for resource reasons. That would be a new (and good, IMO) thing. But it's still TBD whether "30 approved for 25 completed" will apply, and/or what criteria would be used to decide what gets cut. Collected odds and ends from elsewhere in this thread:
If you do care reviewing a spec, that also means you do care reviewing the implementation side.
I agree that would be nice, and I'd like to make it happen, but separately from what's already being discussed. I added a TODO in the spec README [2].
If we end up with bags of "spare time", there's loads of tech-debt items, performance (it's a feature, let's recall) issues, and meaningful clean-ups waiting to be tackled.
Hear hear.
Viewing this from outside, 25 specs in a cycle already sounds like planning to get a *lot* done... that's completing an average of one Nova spec per week (even when averaged through the freeze weeks). Maybe as a goal it's undershooting a bit, but it's still a very impressive quantity to be able to consistently accomplish. Many thanks and congratulations to all the folks who work so hard to make this happen in Nova, cycle after cycle.
That perspective literally hadn't occurred to me from here with my face mashed up against the trees [3]. Thanks fungi.
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.
Good point, Matt. (Not that I think we should, or could, go back to that...) efried [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857 [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/4/README.rst@219 [3] For non-native speakers, this is a reference to the following idiom: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/can-t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees