Open Stack

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-07-27 22:06:43 +0000:
> On 2016-07-27 17:56:39 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > However, we may have some folks on the core team who have not
> > contributed a patch, since it is far more common to do reviews than
> > to submit changes there (more and more of the changes are being
> > automated). So, we probably need to expand the traditional definition
> > to also include the existing core review team (members of
> > requirements-core [1]), just to be safe.
> [...]
> 
> Easy enough to do for a one-off, but might want to consider
> officially adding them as extra-ATCs in governance down the road to
> make that more explicit. Our existing tooling is already adapted to
> that solution as well (for example, the current i18n voters are
> _all_ recorded as extra-ATCs because we haven't implemented API
> calls to Zanata for integrating it into the normal roll generation
> process yet).

Sure, adding them to the extra-atcs list rather than adding custom rules
to the tools makes great sense.

> 
> However, implicitly adding core reviewers seems a little weird as
> they're officially appointed by the PTL and so allowing the
> incumbent PTL to appoint (or remove) specific voters before their
> pending reelection... well anyway, I guess it's balanced out by
> there being a lot more committers to that repo than core reviewers
> on it.

Yes, it is a bit unusual. I'd hate to have the core reviewers *not*
have a vote, though, since they're the ones doing the work in that
repo.

Doug