[openstack-dev] [kolla] discussion about core reviewer limitations by company
Steven Dake (stdake)
stdake at cisco.com
Sat Feb 20 20:58:04 UTC 2016
Neutron, the largest project in OpenStack by active committers and reviewers as measured by the governance repository teamstats tool, has a limit of 2 core reviewers per company. They do that for a reason. I expect Kolla will grow over time (we are about 1/4 their size in terms of contributors and reviewers). I believe other projects follow a similar pattern besides Neutron that already have good diversity (and intend to keep it in place).
From: Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com<mailto:gal.sagie at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:38 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] discussion about core reviewer limitations by company
I think setting these limits is wrong, some companies have more overall representation then others.
The core reviewer job should be on a personal basis and not on a company basis, i think the PTL of each project needs
to make sure the diversity and the community voice is heard in each project and the correct path is taken even if
many (or even if all) of the cores are from the same company.
If you really want to set limits then i would go with something like 2 cores from the same company cannot +2 the same patch, but
again i am against such things personally..
Disclaimer: i am not personally involved in Kolla or know how things are running there.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com<mailto:stdake at cisco.com>> wrote:
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?
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStackemail@example.com?subject:unsubscribe>
Best Regards ,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev