Open Stack

It would be helpful if you could follow the reply style being used.  :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbryant at redhat.com] 
> Sent: October-24-13 5:08 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Blueprint review process
> 
> On 10/24/2013 10:52 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, "Dan Smith" <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth 
>>>> trying at least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not.  The 
>>>> idea is that
>>>> *every* blueprint starts out at a Low priority, which means "best 
>>>> effort, but no promises".  For a blueprint to get prioritized 
>>>> higher, it should have 2 nova-core members signed up to review the resulting code.
>>>
>>> Huge +1 to this. I'm in favor of the whole plan, but specifically the 
>>> prioritization piece is very important, IMHO.
>>
>> I too am in favor of the idea. It is just not clear how 2 Nova cores 
>> will be signed up.
> 
> Good point, there was no detail on that.  I propose just comments on the blueprint whiteboard.  It can be something simple like this to indicate that Dan and I have agreed to review the code for something:
> 
>     "nova-core reviewers: russellb, dansmith"

On 10/24/2013 06:17 PM, Alan Kavanagh wrote:
> Is this really a viable solution?
> I believe its more "democratic to ensure everyone gets a chance to
> present the blueprint" someone has spent time to write. This was no
> favoritism or biased view will ever take place and we let the
> community gauge the interest.

I don't really understand.  The key to this is that it really doesn't
change anything for the end result.  It just makes the blueprint list a
better reflection of what was already happening.

Note that the prioritization changes have nothing to do with whether
blueprints are accepted or not.  That's a separate issue.  That part
isn't changing much beyond having more people helping review blueprints
and having more explicit blueprint review criteria.

-- 
Russell Bryant