Open Stack

Joe Gordon wrote:
>>     My main objection to the model you propose is its binary nature. You
>>     bundle "core reviewing" duties with "drivers" duties into a single
>>     group. That simplification means that drivers have to be core reviewers,
>>     and that core reviewers have to be drivers. Sure, a lot of core
>>     reviewers are good candidates to become drivers. But I think bundling
>>     the two concepts excludes a lot of interesting people from being a
>>     "driver".
> 
> I cannot speak for all projects, but at least in Nova you have to be a
> nova-core to be part of nova-drivers.

And would you describe that as a good thing ? If John Garbutt is so deep
into release liaison work that he can't sustain a review rate suitable
to remain a core reviewer, would you have him removed from the
"maintainers" group ? If someone steps up and works full-time on
triaging bugs in Nova (and can't commit to do enough reviews as a
result), would you exclude that person from your "maintainers" group ?

>>     If someone steps up and owns bug triaging in a project, that is very
>>     interesting and I'd like that person to be part of the "drivers" group.
> 
> In our current model, not sure why they would need to be part of
> drivers. the bug triage group is open to anyone.

I think we are talking past each other. I'm not saying bug triagers have
to be drivers. I'm saying bug triagers should be *allowed* to
potentially become drivers, even if they aren't core reviewers. That is
including of all forms of project leadership.

You are the one suggesting that maintainers and core reviewers are the
same thing, and therefore asking that all maintainers/drivers have to be
core reviewers, actively excluding non-reviewers from that project
leadership class.

>>     Saying core reviewers and maintainers are the same thing, you basically
>>     exclude people from stepping up to the project leadership unless they
>>     are code reviewers. I think that's a bad thing. We need more people
>>     volunteering to own bug triaging and liaison work, not less.
> 
> I don't agree with this statement, I am not saying reviewing and
> maintenance need to be tightly coupled.

You've been proposing to rename "core reviewers" to "maintainers". I'm
not sure how that can be more tightly coupled...

> [...]
> I really want to know what you meant be 'no aristocracy' and the why
> behind that.

Aristocracies are self-selecting, privileged groups. Aristocracies
require that current group members agree on any new member addition,
basically limiting the associated privilege to a caste. Aristocracies
result in limited gene pool, tunnel vision and echo chamber effects.

OpenStack governance mandates that core developers are ultimately the
PTL's choice. Since the PTL is regularly elected by all contributors,
that prevents aristocracy.

However in some projects, core reviewers have to be approved by existing
core reviewers. That is an aristocracy. In those projects, if you
associate more rights and badges to core reviewing (like by renaming it
"maintainer" and bundle "driver" responsibilities with it), I think you
actually extend the aristocracy problem rather than reduce it.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)