Open Stack

> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> 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.

The important part of my statement above was ‘lay the groundwork for’.
We were intended to change the name as a _precursor_ to changing the
role itself to encompass more than just those with +2 rights.  Nobody
in their right mind would assume that changing the name by itself could
fix the situation, but we thought it would be a good signal as to our
intent to broaden the scope of recognized contribution.


> 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.

As Joe and I have said, Nova and Neutron already have drivers teams and 
they fill a different role from what you are suggesting.  Can you think of a more
appropriate name that isn’t already in use for what you are proposing?


Maru