Open Stack

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Everett Toews <everett.toews at rackspace.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/14/2014 05:13 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
> >> The liaison should be a core reviewer for the project, but does not
> >> need to be the PTL. By default, the liaison will be the PTL.
> >
> > ]Anyway, the outcome of the email exchange with Eoghan was that I
> recommended he submit a core for the API liaison to start, and that I would
> raise the issue on the ML to see if those conditions may be loosened to
> include non-cores. And... here is that issue being raised :)
>
> I’m totally fine with that. Ideally it’s the person who is the most
> passionate about the API from the team, regardless of core status.
>
> The current wording on the Cross-Project Liaisons page is
>
> "The liaison should be a core reviewer for the project, but does not need
> to be the PTL.”
>
> I think the key word there is _should_. Naturally, it’s preferable to want
> a core reviewer in this role because they have more say about what gets
> into the code base but it’s not an absolute must.
>
> We can loosen the wording further but I think it’s okay to proceed with a
> non-core reviewer, especially if that person is passionate about APIs.
>
>
My 2c is we should say "The liason should be the PTL or whomever they
delegate to be their representative"  and not mention anything about the
person needing to be a core developer. It removes any ambiguity about who
ultimately decides who the liason is (the PTL) without saying that they
have to do the work themselves.

Regards,

Chris



> Everett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141117/97b87d67/attachment.html>