Open Stack

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Slow review: by limiting the number of blueprints up we hope to focus our
>> efforts on fewer concurrent things
>> slow code turn around: when a blueprint is given a slot (runway) we will
>> first make sure the author/owner is available for fast code turnaround.
>>
>> If a blueprint review stalls out (slow code turnaround, stalemate in
>> review discussions etc.) we will take the slot and give it to another
>> blueprint.
>
>
> How is that more efficient than today's do-the-best-we-can approach? It just
> sounds like bureaucracy to me.
>
> Reading between the lines throughout this thread, it sounds like what we're
> lacking is a reliable method to communicate review prioritization to core
> reviewers.

AIUI, that is precisely what the proposed "slots" would do -- allow
the PTL (or the drivers team) to reliably communicate review
prioritization to the core review team, in a way that is *not* just
more noise on IRC, and is visible to all contributors.

-Deva