Open Stack

+1.  In my experience they've both demonstrated that they know what
they're doing.

I think the bikeshedding/grammar nits on specs is kind of a separate
issue that will need to be worked out in general.  It's still very early
on in this new *-specs repo world, and I think everyone's still trying
to figure out where to draw the line on how much grammar/spelling
nit-picking is appropriate.

-Ben

On 07/09/2014 10:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I've been looking at the statistics, and doing a bit of review of the
> reviewers, and I think we have an opportunity to expand the core reviewer
> team in TripleO. We absolutely need the help, and I think these two
> individuals are well positioned to do that.
> 
> I would like to draw your attention to this page:
> 
> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
> 
> Specifically these two lines:
> 
> +-------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
> |      Reviewer     | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A    +/- % | Disagreements* |
> +-------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
> |  jonpaul-sullivan |     188    0  43 145   0   0    77.1% |   28 ( 14.9%)  |
> |       lxsli       |     186    0  23 163   0   0    87.6% |   27 ( 14.5%)  |
> 
> Note that they are right at the level we expect, 3 per work day. And
> I've looked through their reviews and code contributions: it is clear
> that they understand what we're trying to do in TripleO, and how it all
> works. I am a little dismayed at the slightly high disagreement rate,
> but looking through the disagreements, most of them were jp and lxsli
> being more demanding of submitters, so I am less dismayed.
> 
> So, I propose that we add jonpaul-sullivan and lxsli to the TripleO core
> reviewer team.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>