Open Stack

On 20 February 2016 at 12:58, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:

> 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).
>

Where did you find this information? I do not believe this is true. I agree
wholeheartedly with Joshua: I personally value the judgement of the people
I trust rather than looking at affiliation.


>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> From: Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> 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>
> 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>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards ,
>
> The G.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160221/d1f43937/attachment.html>