Open Stack

On 10/07/2014 02:50 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Signed PGP part
>> On 06/10/14 17:56, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> The Oslo team is responsible for managing code shared between
>>> projects. There are a LOT more projects than Oslo team members, so
>>> we created the liaison program at the beginning of the Juno cycle,
>>> asking each team that uses Oslo libraries to provide one volunteer
>>> liaison. Our liaisons facilitate communication and work with us to
>>> make the application code changes needed as code moves out of the
>>> incubator and into libraries. With this extra help in place, we
>>> were able to successfully graduate 7 new libraries and begin having
>>> them adopted across OpenStack.
>>>
>>> With the change-over to the new release cycle, it’s time to ask for
>>> volunteers to sign up to be liaisons again. If you are interested
>>> in acting as a liaison for your project, please sign up on the wiki
>>> page [1]. It would be very helpful to have a full roster before the
>>> summit, so we can make sure liaisons are invited to participate in
>>> any relevant discussions there.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Doug
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo/ProjectLiaisons
>>
>> Quoting the page: "The liaison should be a core reviewer for the
>> project." Is it a reasonable limitation? I suspect that being an Oslo
>> liaison usually does not really require the core status. Any team
>> member with visible level of participation in the project and decent
>> communication skills should be able to do the job.
>>
>> Why I ask: I would probably consider signing up for the liaison
>> program from Neutron side if 1) the program rules would not be that
>> tight; and 2) current Neutron Oslo liaison (Salvatore?) wouldn't be
>> against it.
> 
> We need someone who can push patches into the project and understands the code well enough to be able to do that without delay. Usually that means a core reviewer. If the Neutron team commits to working closely with you on patches to avoid delays, that would achieve the same ends.
> 

Agreed with Doug. It's not really a strong requirement. The request of
the liaison to be a core reviewer is more a suggestion for the projects
themselves in order to make the interaction between both teams easier.

That said, we could probably re-word that somehow to reflect the above.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco