Open Stack

On 7/20/15, 05:16, "Jesse Pretorius" <jesse.pretorius at gmail.com> wrote:

>On 17 July 2015 at 16:14, Kevin Carter <kevin.carter at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
>
>I would like to nominate Matt Kassawara (IRC: sam-i-am) to the OpenStack
>Ansible deployment core team. Matt has been instrumental in building out
>our current install and use documentation[0], he is just about always in
>the community channel(s) helping folks,
> is a great technical resource for all things networking / OpenStack, and
>is one of the main people we already rely on to ensure we're documenting
>the right things in the right places. IMHO, its about time he be given
>Core powers within the OSAD project.
>
>Please respond with +1/-1s and or any other concerns.
>
>As a reminder, we are using the voting process outlined at [
>https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Approved/CoreDevProcess
><https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Approved/CoreDevProcess> ] to
>add members to our core team.
>
>
>
>
>At this stage my vote is -1. While Matt definitely provides valuable
>input and assistance from time to time, he is not an consistently active
>reviewer. By comparison there are several others [1] who are more
>actively reviewing and providing good feedback
> with regards to code quality, testing results and project fit.
>
>
>I would like to see Matt do more reviews and challenge the team to be
>better at documenting and usability before considering him as a core team
>member.
>
>
>[1] 
>http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=stackforge&release=liberty&module=os
>-ansible-deployment

Yes, Matt should be doing more reviews. The difference is that (as I
understand it) we want to include Matt as a documentation core more than
as a core reviewer for playbooks. Matt's reviews have all pertained to
documentation. Other projects (e.g., Neutron and maybe Glance) are trying
out a trust system where cores are accepted for subsystem expertise. Those
cores are expected to only +2 and/or approve changes for their subsystem.
I don't think anyone can question Matt's expertise in documentation, or
Matt's knowledge of the architecture of the project.

Tl;dr What if we trust Matt to only approve documentation related changes?

Cheers,
Ian