Open Stack

Oracle, Redhat, Mirantis, Servosity, 99cloud. Those are the biggest users,
at least according to the reviews and commits.

I am not in favor of limiting the number of cores from a single company.
However, it is an unwritten rule that I've heard and abide by that a
company should not push a patch through. This means 2 people from the same
company should not approve a third person from that same company's patch. I
feel that is a decent rule to follow.
On Feb 20, 2016 12:41 PM, "Joshua Harlow" <harlowja at fastmail.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, who are kollas big users?
>
> If it's mirantis and redhat (and nobody much else?) then meh, does this
> really matter. Sure work on getting more usage and adoption and other
> companies interested but why stagnate a project (by doing this) while that
> is underway?
>
> Other question; is kolla so influenced by mirantis or redhat management
> that there isn't trust that things will be handled appropriately by smart
> engineers/reviewers (that should not blindly listen to there management for
> all the things, but think of the bigger picture).
>
> Just my 2 cents (I prefer trust rather than not and just curious what the
> real concern here is, and what evidence from past examples shows that this
> really is a concern in the first place).
>
> I will show myself out now, ha.
>
> -Josh
>
> On 02/20/2016 09:09 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> Mirantis has been developing a big footprint in the core review team,
>> and Red Hat already has a big footprint in the core review team.  These
>> are all good things, but I want to avoid in the future a situation in
>> which one company has a majority of core reviewers.  Since core
>> reviewers set policy for the project, the project could be harmed if one
>> company has such a majority.  This is one reason why project diversity
>> is so important and has its own special snowflake tag in the governance
>> repository.
>>
>> I'd like your thoughts on how to best handle this situation, before I
>> trigger  a vote we can all agree on.
>>
>> I was thinking of something simple like:
>> "1 company may not have more then 33% of core reviewers.  At the
>> conclusion of PTL elections, the current cycle's 6 months of reviews
>> completed will be used as a metric to select the core reviewers from
>> that particular company if the core review team has shrunk as a result
>> of removal of core reviewers during the cycle."
>>
>> Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns, etc?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160220/9b0e17c1/attachment.html>