Open Stack

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Thanks a lot for the reply! I think it raises some good points here
that I would like to clarify with other team members. I don't think
those should interface with the current nomination run, so I spin it
into a separate thread.

Some comments inline.

On 08/12/2015 07:16 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> [1] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron-group/90
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we use the link that shows neutron core repo
> contributions only? I think this is the right one:
> 
> http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/neutron/90
> 
> 
>> Sure, if you want to look at only the neutron repo. I tend to
>> look at people across all of our repos, which you may or may not
>> agree with. I

Neutron-core gerrit group indeed always had a vague definition. It
worked fine before when we had just neutron and python-neutronclient
repositories [even though client expertise stands out somewhat of
usual server oriented development we do in neutron repo].

Now, with successful tree split into neutron, neutron-*aas,
networking-*, + having a separate repo for specs; now that neutron is
really a meta-project (a big tent they say),

it feels to me that leaving neutron-core group as a "meta-group" that
includes everyone who makes significant positive impact in any of
those repos is not optimal.

Having core team members that are judged solely on how they impact the
core repo seems to me a better approach. Fostering more focused teams
was one of the goals of tree splits, so I think we should take that
gerrit advantage of having multiple repos more seriously.

>> also think that it's worth looking at the statement of what core 
>> reviewers do found here [1]. Particularly what common ideals all
>> core reviewers across Neutron share. I'll copy them here:
> 
>> 1. They share responsibility in the project’s success. 2. They
>> have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the 
>> project. 3. They spend their time doing what needs to be done to
>> ensure the projects success, not necessarily what is the most
>> interesting or fun.
> 

The list is indeed a great one, and a lot of us, including - if not
especially! - me, sometimes lag on some of those points.

But doesn't the section talk about the big neutron tent, while voting
permissions are still per-repo?

>> Also, keep in mind how we nominate core reviewers now that we
>> have a Lieutenant system [2].

That raises another interesting point that bothers me for some time.
The section refers multiple times to 'Neutron core reviewers from the
Lieutenant’s area of focus', but it does not say anything about
reviewers [that I call 'obsolete'] who got into the core team before
we had subteams and Lieutenants. Should they even have a say in
subteam nominations? Everytime a nomination is proposed, I don't know
whether I am in the position to put +1/-1.

So the wording could be clarified here once we understand what the
intended rules should be here.

> 
>> Finally, it's worth all core reviewers having a look at what's
>> expected of core reviewers here. [3] I should point out that the
>> team is severely lacking in weekly meeting attendance at this
>> point, but it's not a good thread to do that. Instead, I'll just
>> point out what we as a team have codified as expectations for
>> core reviewers.

Not that it's in the core of the matter for the thread, but I wonder
what reasonable attendance is, considering we have shifted schedule
that makes some team meetings occur at time when you usually prepare
to sleep or order yet another beer in a pub. Is participation once per
two weeks resonable, or should core reviewers strive to make it every
week?

> 
>> Thanks! Kyle
> 
>> [1] 
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h
tml#neutron-core-reviewers
>>
>> 
[2]
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h
tml#adding-or-removing-core-reviewers
>>
>> 
[3]
>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/policies/core-reviewers.h
tml#neutron-core-reviewer-membership-expectations
>
>> 
> Ihar
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
____
>
> 
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe 
> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>
> 
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
____
>
> 
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe 
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVzdD/AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57SHsH/2/oBqY4uJnfJxKnHI909mCn
ttHu5j+Nvs7idb4opJm48UaHPcEGEea9ruzMz+usUtGY/vyYRhZ7svAENmAxKszR
+d9Wkt0sxImpoCWkIEE7zS+EJNSxe+ps6F8vOpNnQO8RwuEOveQ0QXj85xgIToza
LkFQiQUO+y4FIO0auXii/yAwwvj3euj+u2Q6oB1QnqVe+Mwf3xEnOrx5NPj4eLQ/
sA2vLZcAx1cDVQORqum7ZSYr5Xm799bhDNmGfCFSShQ3znar4At4MHqDn8jW0rFZ
w3Wy9QVdr0QaY4xxSj1ktRh0SXbFGVD2pPCPPm4m/myJ3o5mnknhYe2mUiRLh88=
=UJ1E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----