Open Stack

+1 core shouldn't mean some group of people in an ivory tower.

I'd be all for 'reviewers' which doesn't have the ivory tower/elite 'feel'
to it. 

On 4/23/13 2:36 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev