Open Stack

On 2015-04-01 14:35:22 -0700 (-0700), Maru Newby wrote:
> I find your perspective on the term ‘core reviewer’ to be
> interesting indeed, and for me it underscores the need to consider
> whether using the term outside of gerrit is justified.

Agreed, that's why I said I'm worried that our community is
enshrining an implementation detail, and ascribing something more to
it than is warranted.

Many of the people who have access to mark changes as ready to merge
also do bug triage or undertake thankless refactoring of the code
commons or set development priorities or write documentation or
translate strings or... these are all valuable contributions within
the community. Some of these require access to specific controls in
our tools granted based on the trust of the community, while others
do not, and many of us do more than just one of these things at a
time too. There are certainly some nuanced relationships between
various tasks, and how our community self-organizes determines some
of this. However I'm not sure codifying it and wrapping those
relationships in process and policy is always beneficial.

I really just wanted to warn against the temptation I've seen for
people to confuse the work being done (which is valuable) for the
permissions needed to safely do some of that work (which is merely
an implementation detail). Work which can be done without needing
special permission is not necessarily any less valuable than that
which requires addition to some access control; but since parties
who don't understand our mostly non-hierarchical community can see
those sets of access controls, they cling to them as a sign of
importance and hierarchy of the people listed within.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley