Open Stack

On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> >
> > The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see
> > what is being proposed and give input.
> >
> > Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be the
> > operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the equivalent
> > operator/user definition is less clear.
>
> I think spec review participation is a great example of where it would
> make sense to grant extra ATC status.  If someone provides valuable spec
> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to
> approve their ATC status if proposed.


This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is
looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec
process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the contributions.

This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation.

--Morgan


> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150501/5f0fabe0/attachment.html>