Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:43:21PM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> 
> 
> > >> Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can
> > >> focus
> > >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand
> > >> our
> > >> cross project resources to cover these again. This doesn't mean removing
> > >> anything.
> > >> * Sahara
> > >> * Trove
> > >> * Tripleo
> > > 
> > > You write as if cross-project efforts are both of fixed size and
> > > amenable to centralized command & control.
> > > 
> > > Neither of which is actually the case, IMO.
> > > 
> > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large
> > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not
> > > necessarily divertable on command.
> > 
> > What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in
> > Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend that
> > to other programs and say that each project needs at least one designated
> > QA, Infra, Doc, etc. contact?
> 
> Well my working assumption was that we were talking about people with
> the appropriate domain knowledge who are focused primarily on standing
> up the QA infrastructure.
> 
> (as opposed to designated points-of-contact within the individual
> project teams who would be the first port of call for the QA/infra/doc
> folks if they needed a project-specific perspective on some live issue)
>  
> That said however, I agree that it would be useful for the QA/infra/doc
> teams to know who in each project is most domain-knowledgeable when they
> need to reach out about a project-specific issue.
> 

I actually hadn't considered doing a formal liaison program, like Oslo, in QA
before. Mostly, because at least myself and most of the QA cores have a decent
grasp on who to ping about certain topics or reviews. That being said, I realize
that probably is only disseminating information in a single direction. So maybe
having a formal liaison makes sense.

I'll talk to Doug and others about this and see whether adopting something
similar for QA makes sense.


-Matt Treinish
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140813/49ac12a7/attachment.pgp>