Open Stack

On 02/04/15 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Maru Newby wrote:
>> [...] Many of us in the Neutron
>> community find this taxonomy restrictive and not representative
>> of all the work that makes the project possible.
>
>We seem to be after the same end goal. I just disagree that renaming
>"core reviewers" to "maintainers" is a positive step toward that goal.
>
>> Worse, 'cores'
>> are put on a pedastal, and not just in the project.  Every summit
>> a 'core reviewer dinner' is held that underscores the
>> glorification of this designation.
>
>I deeply regret that, and communicated to the sponsor holding it the
>problem with this "+2 dinner" the very first time it was held. FWIW it's
>been renamed to "VIP dinner" and no longer limited to core reviewers,
>but I'd agree with you that the damage was already done.
>
>> By proposing to rename 'core
>> reviewer' to 'maintainer' the goal was to lay the groundwork for
>> broadening the base of people whose valuable contribution could
>> be recognized.  The goal was to recognize not just review-related
>> contributors, but also roles like doc/bug/test czar and cross-project
>> liaison.  The statue of the people filling these roles today is less
>> if they are not also ‘core’, and that makes the work less attractive
>> to many.
>
>That's where we disagree. You see renaming "core reviewer" to
>"maintainer" has a way to recognize a broader type of contributions. I
>see it as precisely resulting in the opposite.
>
>Simply renaming "core reviewers" to "maintainers" just keeps us using a
>single term (or class) to describe project leadership. And that class
>includes +2 reviewing duties. So you can't be a maintainer if you don't
>do core reviewing. That is exclusive, not inclusive.
>
>What we need to do instead is reviving the "drivers" concept (we can
>rename it "maintainers" if you really like that term), separate from the
>"core reviewers" concept. One can be a project "driver" and a "core
>reviewer". And one can be a project "driver" *without* being a "core
>reviewer". Now *that* allows to recognize all valuable contributions,
>and to be representative of all the work that makes the project possible.

While I don't think renaming "core reviewers" to "maintainers" will
fix the problem, I do recognize this as a step forward on fixing the
issue. It just states that we know there's been a misunderstanding on
what the purpose of the team is and we're working on changing that.

This being said, there are projects that have the "drivers" and the
"cores" team split already. Glance being one of them. This allows for
allowing people to focus on the areas they are most interested in.

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150402/ac4ffb24/attachment.pgp>