Dear Ironic Community, I would like to participate in the Ironic project bug fixes and code review process. Please let me know how I can participate in the Ironic team meetings. Regards Vivek On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:14 PM Riccardo Pittau <elfosardo@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Jay,

Apologies for the late reply, we've already discussed this in private, but I really want to show my full support for what I truly believe is a great way to improve the Ironic community.

Thank you for taking the lead on the change, hope will see that effective soon!

Ciao Riccardo

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:

...

Hello Jay,

I think this is a great approach to on-boarding new folks by having the tiered approach. Thank you for taking the time to propose it and do the work necessary to make it happen.

Additionally I’m honored to be considered by the Ironic project and I would happily accept becoming a reviewer.

Thank you. -- Doug

On Oct 10, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

 OpenStack & Ironic community,

Ironic has not added a core reviewer in years. We've had new contributors during this time, but none who has, as yet, risen to the level of being given core review access -- which reflects how steep the learning/responsibility curve is to being a core on an OpenStack project.

I'd like to propose, on behalf of many Ironic cores and our PTL Riccardo, a new core review structure for Ironic projects. The goal being to provide an on-ramp for newer cores into the community.

The existing ironic-core group will be removed and replaced with two new groups: - ironic-reviewers will contain contributors permitted to perform core reviews (+2/-2) against patches in ironic projects. This group will be initially populated with two new code reviewers (should they accept), CID and cardoe. - ironic-approvers will contain contributors permitted to both perform core reviews and workflow (+A) patchsets. This group will be initially populated with the existing membership of ironic-core.

I hope that by providing a middle point on the route to being an approver, we'll be able to extend trust to new contributors more quickly and give them incentive to code review more often -- since their reviews will be able to have a positive impact on landing code more quickly.

I've proposed a change here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/931991 which makes the first step in adjusting ACLs to split the groups. I've also as part of this change unified more ironic-related projects under the ironic core review banner after auditing those core groups and seeing some inactive contributors in them.

Ironic cores have already discussed this privately, and we have a lazy consensus to perform this change. This email serves as both notice to the larger community and as a formal way to gain consensus. If there are any questions or concerns please let us know.

Thanks, Jay Faulkner

Hi Jay, Awesome, thanks for the info! I will attend these meetings from Monday. Regards Vivek On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 1:23 AM Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

Hey Vivek,

You're welcome to come chat with us in IRC anytime on OFTC #openstack-ironic. The weekly team meetings are usually on Monday 1500 UTC, with agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic.

Thanks,

Jay Faulkner

On 10/15/24 9:56 AM, Vivekanandan Muthukrishnan wrote:

Dear Ironic Community,

I would like to participate in the Ironic project bug fixes and code review process. Please let me know how I can participate in the Ironic team meetings.

Regards Vivek

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:14 PM Riccardo Pittau <elfosardo@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hey Jay,

Apologies for the late reply, we've already discussed this in private, but I really want to show my full support for what I truly believe is a great way to improve the Ironic community.

Thank you for taking the lead on the change, hope will see that effective soon!

Ciao Riccardo

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:

...

Hello Jay,

I think this is a great approach to on-boarding new folks by having the tiered approach. Thank you for taking the time to propose it and do the work necessary to make it happen.

Additionally I’m honored to be considered by the Ironic project and I would happily accept becoming a reviewer.

Thank you. -- Doug

On Oct 10, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

 OpenStack & Ironic community,

Ironic has not added a core reviewer in years. We've had new contributors during this time, but none who has, as yet, risen to the level of being given core review access -- which reflects how steep the learning/responsibility curve is to being a core on an OpenStack project.

I'd like to propose, on behalf of many Ironic cores and our PTL Riccardo, a new core review structure for Ironic projects. The goal being to provide an on-ramp for newer cores into the community.

The existing ironic-core group will be removed and replaced with two new groups: - ironic-reviewers will contain contributors permitted to perform core reviews (+2/-2) against patches in ironic projects. This group will be initially populated with two new code reviewers (should they accept), CID and cardoe. - ironic-approvers will contain contributors permitted to both perform core reviews and workflow (+A) patchsets. This group will be initially populated with the existing membership of ironic-core.

I hope that by providing a middle point on the route to being an approver, we'll be able to extend trust to new contributors more quickly and give them incentive to code review more often -- since their reviews will be able to have a positive impact on landing code more quickly.

I've proposed a change here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/931991 which makes the first step in adjusting ACLs to split the groups. I've also as part of this change unified more ironic-related projects under the ironic core review banner after auditing those core groups and seeing some inactive contributors in them.

Ironic cores have already discussed this privately, and we have a lazy consensus to perform this change. This email serves as both notice to the larger community and as a formal way to gain consensus. If there are any questions or concerns please let us know.

Thanks, Jay Faulkner

An interesting benefit of this change is also process enablement through the access control model in Gerrit. Specifically Ironic uses hashtag labels to aid and ease cross-reviewer signaling, and one needs to be a member of.a group today in order to set/change that field. On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 11:42 PM Dmitriy Rabotyagov <noonedeadpunk@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey,

At first it felt to me like really a nice idea on how better encourage and onboard core reviewers. And probably it really is. But thinking about that for a while, I feel that it's just a devaluation of a regular reviewers role, which already stands up for what you've described as ironic-reviewers. As any review from the community should eventually have an impact on landing code. So a very close analogy would be to change a policy to allow core reviewers to land a patch if there're some +1s, but not enough+2s, except the circle of who can set +1 is limited. But then a possible side effect of having ironic-reviewers is that the rest of the community might get more demotivated with providing +1, as that won't have an impact in their minds (which is already an opinion across the board). But I do agree with the point, that this step will for sure grow and additionally motivate ones selected to be part of that group.

Not sure what a conclusion is here though, but that is indeed an interesting "experiment".

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 06:51 Vivekanandan Muthukrishnan <vivek@vnetpops.com> wrote:

...

Hi Jay,

Awesome, thanks for the info! I will attend these meetings from Monday.

Regards Vivek

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 1:23 AM Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

...

Hey Vivek,

You're welcome to come chat with us in IRC anytime on OFTC #openstack-ironic. The weekly team meetings are usually on Monday 1500 UTC, with agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic.

Thanks,

Jay Faulkner

On 10/15/24 9:56 AM, Vivekanandan Muthukrishnan wrote:

Dear Ironic Community,

I would like to participate in the Ironic project bug fixes and code review process. Please let me know how I can participate in the Ironic team meetings.

Regards Vivek

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:14 PM Riccardo Pittau <elfosardo@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hey Jay,

Apologies for the late reply, we've already discussed this in private, but I really want to show my full support for what I truly believe is a great way to improve the Ironic community.

Thank you for taking the lead on the change, hope will see that effective soon!

Ciao Riccardo

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:

...

Hello Jay,

I think this is a great approach to on-boarding new folks by having the tiered approach. Thank you for taking the time to propose it and do the work necessary to make it happen.

Additionally I’m honored to be considered by the Ironic project and I would happily accept becoming a reviewer.

Thank you. -- Doug

On Oct 10, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

 OpenStack & Ironic community,

Ironic has not added a core reviewer in years. We've had new contributors during this time, but none who has, as yet, risen to the level of being given core review access -- which reflects how steep the learning/responsibility curve is to being a core on an OpenStack project.

I'd like to propose, on behalf of many Ironic cores and our PTL Riccardo, a new core review structure for Ironic projects. The goal being to provide an on-ramp for newer cores into the community.

The existing ironic-core group will be removed and replaced with two new groups: - ironic-reviewers will contain contributors permitted to perform core reviews (+2/-2) against patches in ironic projects. This group will be initially populated with two new code reviewers (should they accept), CID and cardoe. - ironic-approvers will contain contributors permitted to both perform core reviews and workflow (+A) patchsets. This group will be initially populated with the existing membership of ironic-core.

I hope that by providing a middle point on the route to being an approver, we'll be able to extend trust to new contributors more quickly and give them incentive to code review more often -- since their reviews will be able to have a positive impact on landing code more quickly.

I've proposed a change here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/931991 which makes the first step in adjusting ACLs to split the groups. I've also as part of this change unified more ironic-related projects under the ironic core review banner after auditing those core groups and seeing some inactive contributors in them.

Ironic cores have already discussed this privately, and we have a lazy consensus to perform this change. This email serves as both notice to the larger community and as a formal way to gain consensus. If there are any questions or concerns please let us know.

Thanks, Jay Faulkner

Comments inline, but I want to preface this with: I'm happy to have the discussion about this direction with the larger community as I think this is a model worth adopting elsewhere; but I feel strongly this is the correct move for Ironic and am moving forward with that until/unless an Ironic core or our PTL suggests otherwise. On 10/15/24 11:41 PM, Dmitriy Rabotyagov wrote:

Hey,

At first it felt to me like really a nice idea on how better encourage and onboard core reviewers. And probably it really is. But thinking about that for a while, I feel that it's just a devaluation of a regular reviewers role, which already stands up for what you've described as ironic-reviewers. As any review from the community should eventually have an impact on landing code.

This is a direct reaction to that devaluation of +1s -- it's my hope that having a middle group that we can be more aggressive in adding people to that we can ensure anyone who performs significant reviews in our repository can be granted the ability for them to "count" by being +2s. I personally hope -- but I don't think we've reached full consensus on Ironic team yet to do this -- that we'll increase the size of the ironic-reviewers team considerably over time. And honestly, part of my goal here is to encourage contributors to migrate from "drive-by" reviewer/contributor to taking on more of the responsibilities typically held by a core. Right now, as I said in my initial email, the learning curve to become a core reviewer on a major OpenStack project is more akin to a cliff than a curve :). Making it so that non-cores have more authority by default doesn't do anything to improve this, but adding a milestone on the path gives those contributors a measuring point to know their contributions are appreciated and valued and that they're building up to being an approver.

So a very close analogy would be to change a policy to allow core reviewers to land a patch if there're some +1s, but not enough+2s, except the circle of who can set +1 is limited. But then a possible side effect of having ironic-reviewers is that the rest of the community might get more demotivated with providing +1, as that won't have an impact in their minds (which is already an opinion across the board). But I do agree with the point, that this step will for sure grow and additionally motivate ones selected to be part of that group.

Sometimes it's easy in an OSS project to look at the community as a machine, and try to figure out how to get it running smoothly -- but it's not. The community has humans who often need/want affirmation or employees who often have to justify the time they spend working on OpenStack to their employers. This requires looking past the actual impact of a policy on the nuts and bolts and asking the question "how does this impact the humans working on the project"? Just making a +1 more valuable does not add the kind of recognition being named a maintainer -- at any level -- on an open source project can provide. It's easy to forget that when a lot of us have been in positions of responsibility in OSS for years and years :).

Not sure what a conclusion is here though, but that is indeed an interesting "experiment".

Yes, "science". :D https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Juu0vjqD/doggo.png More seriously; thanks for the input. I am trying to pitch any idea possible that we can use to help reward new contributors that already exist and to attract ones we haven't met yet; I'm hoping this change will contribute to that goal. Thanks, Jay Faulkner

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 06:51 Vivekanandan Muthukrishnan <vivek@vnetpops.com> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Awesome, thanks for the info!  I will attend these meetings from Monday.

Regards Vivek

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 1:23 AM Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

Hey Vivek,

You're welcome to come chat with us in IRC anytime on OFTC #openstack-ironic. The weekly team meetings are usually on Monday 1500 UTC, with agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic.

Thanks,

Jay Faulkner

On 10/15/24 9:56 AM, Vivekanandan Muthukrishnan wrote:

...

Dear Ironic Community,

I would like to participate in the Ironic project bug fixes and code review process. Please let me know how I can participate in the Ironic team meetings.

Regards Vivek

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:14 PM Riccardo Pittau <elfosardo@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Jay,

Apologies for the late reply, we've already discussed this in private, but I really want to show my full support for what I truly believe is a great way to improve the Ironic community.

Thank you for taking the lead on the change, hope will see that effective soon!

Ciao Riccardo

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:

Hello Jay,

I think this is a great approach to on-boarding new folks by having the tiered approach. Thank you for taking the time to propose it and do the work necessary to make it happen.

Additionally I’m honored to be considered by the Ironic project and I would happily accept becoming a reviewer.

Thank you. -- Doug

...

On Oct 10, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Jay Faulkner <jay@gr-oss.io> wrote:

 OpenStack & Ironic community,

Ironic has not added a core reviewer in years. We've had new contributors during this time, but none who has, as yet, risen to the level of being given core review access -- which reflects how steep the learning/responsibility curve is to being a core on an OpenStack project.

I'd like to propose, on behalf of many Ironic cores and our PTL Riccardo, a new core review structure for Ironic projects. The goal being to provide an on-ramp for newer cores into the community.

The existing ironic-core group will be removed and replaced with two new groups: - ironic-reviewers will contain contributors permitted to perform core reviews (+2/-2) against patches in ironic projects. This group will be initially populated with two new code reviewers (should they accept), CID and cardoe. - ironic-approvers will contain contributors permitted to both perform core reviews and workflow (+A) patchsets. This group will be initially populated with the existing membership of ironic-core.

I hope that by providing a middle point on the route to being an approver, we'll be able to extend trust to new contributors more quickly and give them incentive to code review more often -- since their reviews will be able to have a positive impact on landing code more quickly.

I've proposed a change here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/931991which makes the first step in adjusting ACLs to split the groups. I've also as part of this change unified more ironic-related projects under the ironic core review banner after auditing those core groups and seeing some inactive contributors in them.

Ironic cores have already discussed this privately, and we have a lazy consensus to perform this change. This email serves as both notice to the larger community and as a formal way to gain consensus. If there are any questions or concerns please let us know.

Thanks, Jay Faulkner