Open Stack

Robert Collins wrote:
> I think you have a very different definition of -core to the rest of
> OpenStack. I was actually somewhat concerned about the '+2 Guard the
> gate stuff' at the summit because it's so easily misinterpreted - and
> there is a meme going around (I don't know if it's true or not) that
> some people are assessed - performance review stuff within vendor
> organisations - on becoming core reviewers.
> 
> Core reviewer is not intended to be a gateway to getting features or
> ideas into OpenStack projects. It is solely a volunteered contribution
> to the project: helping the project accept patches with confidence
> about their long term integrity: providing explanation and guidance to
> people that want to contribute patches so that their patch can be
> accepted.

I +1ed some of Steven's original email so I guess I should also +1 this,
because it is spot-on.

>From the very beginning in OpenStack we tried hard not to create a caste
of elite developers (or "committers") with extra rights over lowly
developers. You shouldn't have to be a core reviewer to be influential
on a project. Core reviewers are a group of people who sign up to do an
important share of quality code reviews. It's a duty, not a right. Some
people prove to be consistently good at it, and our process requires
that at least two of those people approve a patch before it can finally
make it, but that's a process detail. In particular, -1 reviews should
not be blatantly ignored and +2ed.

Personally I'm not trying to be a core reviewer because I don't have
enough time for that, and I found other ways of making myself useful to
OpenStack that are, I hope, at least as valid. That's why I thought
creating VIP parties for +2 reviewers (or giving them special badges or
T-shirts) is spreading the wrong message, and encourage people to hang
on to the extra rights associated with the duty.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)