Open Stack

On 07/17/2013 11:41 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 02:35 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> <snip>
>> Just to point out a few things here, first off there is no guideline
>> that states a company affiliation should have anything to do with the
>> decision on voting somebody as core.  I have ABSOLUTELY NO concern about
>> representation of company affiliation what so ever.
>>
>> Quite frankly I wouldn't mind if there were 20 core members from HP, if
>> they're all actively engaged and participating then that's great.  I
>> don't think there has been ANY incidence of folks exerting inappropriate
>> influence based on their affiliated interest, and if there ever was I
>> think it would be easy to identify and address.
>>
>> As far as "don't need more" I don't agree with that either, if there are
>> folks contributing and doing the work then there's no reason not to add
>> them.  Cinder IMO does NOT have an excess of reviewers by a very very
>> long stretch.
>>
>> The criteria here should be review consistency and quality as well as
>> knowledge of the project, nothing more nothing less.  If there's an
>> objection to the individuals participation or contribution that's fine,
>> but company affiliation should have no bearing.
> 
> +1
> 
> The people that do great work on reviews, should really be your review
> team, regardless of affiliation.

+1 (also +1 to what Mark and Dan said)

FWIW - _all_ of the core members of the Infra team were HP for quite a
while - and everyone on the team was quite good about always wearing
their upstream hat. We're split 50/50 now - HP and OpenStack Foundation.
I'd LOVE more diversity, but we would certainly die if we had a
diversity requirement.