Open Stack

Le 20 févr. 2016 18:12, "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com> a écrit :
>
> 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?


I think that introducing this policy would not be fair and would even be
counter-productive. For example, my motivation would be low if I knew I
couldn't be accepted as a core reviewer because my company already has "too
many" core reviewers.  So this policy would close the doors to developers
who could potentially be great contributors to the success of the project.
If anything, a policy where "2 people from the same company should not
approve a third person from that same company's patch" (as stated by Sam
Yaple) would sound more acceptable to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160222/dd244c29/attachment.html>