Open Stack

On 14/08/15 10:14 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>    On 14/08/15 10:42 -0400, Assaf Muller wrote:
>   
>        First I'd like to say that I recognize that this discussion is
>        incredibly
>        personal. Brandon and Russell, please do not be offended, but I know
>        that I
>        probably would be if this very public thread involved myself. That
>        being said,
>        please know that from my perspective this is *not* personal, rather I
>        see this
>        as a general discussion about the precedent that we are creating here.
>
>        Responses in-line.
>
>        On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com>
>        wrote:
>
>           On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <
>        ihrachys at redhat.com>
>           wrote:
>                 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. 
>
>             This is where I'd disagree. I think in general teams pay too much
>        attention
>           to stats, which are incredibly easy to game. Case in point, with the
>           current objections people have over Brandon and Russell being
>        nominated, I
>           could have waited 4-6 weeks and let them amass a plethora of review
>        stats,
>           but what would the point of that have been?
>
>
>        None what so ever. I think the point here is that if someone is
>        focusing on
>        another project then it's debatable if they should become a core in the
>        Neutron
>        project itself. Very simply put, if someone is a core in a subproject
>        and is
>        doing a fantastic job, but that person is not truly involved in the
>        Neutron
>        project itself, then that person becoming core in Neutron to me is
>        dangerous.
>        Before someone becomes core, I would like to be familiar with their
>        expertise
>        in Neutron so that I know if to trust their +2 or not on a given area
>        in
>        Neutron. If that person didn't really focus on Neutron then I have no
>        way of
>        being familiar with their expertise, thus no ability to trust them even
>        if I'm
>        generally a trusting person.
>   
>
>    I'm not really familiar with Neutron's workflow but as an outsider and
>    also based on my experience from other projects, the separation of
>    concerns from a review perspective is very useful. Teams that govern
>    several projects are be better off giving reviewing rights to folks
>    in a per-project basis rather than doing it cross-team.
>
>    I'd go as far as saying that folks with review rights in the server
>    don't necessarily need to have review rights in smaller projects. The
>    reason I'm saying this is because I believe that reviewer rights is
>    not a prize but a volunteer job. The moment I'm asked whether I want
>    to join a reviewers team in a project, I gotta be honest with what my
>    available time will allow me to do.
>
>
>
>What you just said is what I've been trying to emphasize my entire time as PTL:
>Reviewing is a duty, not a prize. The thing we're discussing here is the issue
>of when to give someone +2 rights. I'm arguing in favor of a web of trust
>system, which is what we have with Lieutenants. I'm also saying that I'm a
>proponent of elevating folks who want to take on the duty and letting them do
>that before they spend a month building up stats. This is not an opinion shared
>by everyone I realize, but it's my opinion.
>
>Like I've said in this thread, the entire system is built on trust. We as a
>community need to trust more and rely on that trust. I feel as if I've spent my
>PTL time trying to build that up and instill this value into the Neutron
>community. The results speak for themselves at this point, but I'm proud of
>what *we* as a community have built here.

Different projects follow different rules. Some projects favor stats,
others favor enthusiasm and try to build a stronger community based on
that.

I just wanted to say that I personally favor building a web of trust
rather than relying *just* on stats!

Flavio

>
>Kyle
> 
>
>    To what I just said, I'd also add the familiarity with the code-base,
>    etc.
>
>    Just my $0.02,
>    Flavio
>
>
>
>    --
>    @flaper87
>    Flavio Percoco
>   
>    __________________________________________________________________________
>    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
>
>
>

-- 
@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/20150814/09ade026/attachment.pgp>