Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Derek Higgins wrote:
<snip>

> >
> >Ah, I think all we have here is a terminology mismatch around "non voting"
> >vs "non gating".
> >
> >AFAIK what is being proposed is to reinstate the TripleO jobs so they *do*
> >vote on any change (+1/-1), but they do not block the gate, so we won't get
> >in the way if occasional outages happen.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to do, nothing would be changing from how
> it used to be, the tripleo jobs would vote with a -1/+1 but approvers could
> still approve if they wanted to (i.e. not in the gate). The only thing I am
> asking we do differently to the way it used to be is an agreement to not
> blindly ignore the results of the tripleo job as ignoring the results is
> what causes a lot of the breakages in the first place.

+1, this is what I was imagining when we first talked about this. Let's
go ahead and add this to ironic, I'll be sure to make an announcement in
Monday's meeting.

// jim