Open Stack

Russell Bryant wrote:
> I'd like to see us all try to speak about the core teams as review teams
> as opposed to recognition of being an important contributor.  I think
> many people (and their managers) see membership on whatever-core as the
> ultimate goal, and lack of membership on whatever-core meaning they are
> not doing well enough.

That's an unfortunate side-effect of our choice of words. "Core" implies
some kind of inner group, while "core" teams have always been about
review duties, i.e. the subset of contributors who have deep experience
of the code, time to dedicate to reviews, attention to detail,
complementary insights and some mentoring/teaching abilities. You can be
an extremely talented and valued contributor without fitting into that box.

It's not really a status, it doesn't really give you rights. "Reviewers"
would probably be a better word for it... and if "core" continues to be
externally seen as "elite" we might need to go through the hassle of
renaming those.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack