[openstack-dev] [kolla] discussion about core reviewer limitations by company

Steven Dake (stdake) stdake at cisco.com
Sat Feb 20 21:03:47 UTC 2016

On 2/20/16, 10:39 AM, "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?

There are tons of people using Kolla but about 10 companies involved in
its development.  I do not have an accounting of *who* is using Kolla
since Operators tend to keep their vendor information under their hat.

>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).

I did not bring up any issue of trust or management involvement in
upstream affairs.  If people are so blindly directed by their management
teams, they won't be invited to the core reviewer team in the first place
or their stay won't be long ;)

>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).

My philosophy is trust until given reason not to.  That said, policy
directions set by a majority with one mindset doesn't seem healthy and the
TC agrees as in how they measure diversity [1].



No one organization should represent a majority (>50%) and no two
organizations should represent >80% of any of the following:
* the union of the memberships of the core review teams associated with
the git repositories managed by the team

>I will show myself out now, ha.
>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

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list