Open Stack

On 06/09/2016 10:10 AM, Dougal Matthews wrote:
> On 9 June 2016 at 15:03, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been in discussion with Martin André and Tomas Sedovic, who are
>> involved with the creation of the new tripleo-validations repo[1]
>>
>> We've agreed that rather than create another gerrit group, they can be
>> added to tripleo-core and agree to restrict +A to this repo for the time
>> being (hopefully they'll both continue to review more widely, and obviously
>> Tomas is a former TripleO core anyway, so welcome back! :)
>>
> 
> +1, I think this approach works fine. Requiring sub groups only makes sense
> if we don't feel we can trust people, but then they shouldn't be core. It
> might
> be worth documenting this somewhere however as we have a few restricted
> cores.
> 

So, I am not strongly opinionated in either direction. However, I do
think sub groups can make some sense. I don't know if it makes sense or
not for tripleo-validations, but I quite like it for tripleo-quickstart.
I like that I can choose to trust someone with +2 on tripleo-quickstart
without forcing the rest of tripleo to trust them with +2 on all
projects. I think this could be an interesting model where we could have
at least one main tripleo core in any sub group who is responsible for
mentoring new people to become core in their sub group, and hopefully
eventually into the main tripleo core group.

There is also an accounting reason for sub groups. With no sub groups,
we would just have one large core team. However, effectively many of
these cores would actually be sub group specialists, and not +2ing
outside of their specialty. It is then hard to have any useful
accounting of how many tripleo-cores are specialists vs. generalists vs.
generalists with a specialty. Not sure if that is worth the overhead of
sub groups in and of itself, just wanted to point out there is more
benefit than just the trust issue.

> 
> If folks feel strongly we should create another group we can, but this
>> seems like a low-overhead approach, and well aligned with the scope of the
>> repo, let me know if you disagree.
>>
>> Also, while reviewing the core group[2] I noticed the following members who
>> are no longer active and should probably be removed:
>>
>> - Radomir Dopieralski
>> - Martyn Taylor
>> - Clint Byrum
>>
>> I know Clint is still involved with DiB (which has a separate core group),
>> but he's indicated he's no longer going to be directly involved in other
>> tripleo development, and AFAIK neither Martyn or Radomir are actively
>> involved in TripleO reviews - thanks to them all for their contribution,
>> we'll gladly add you back in the future should you wish to return :)
>>
>> Please let me know if there are any concerns or objections, if there are
>> none I will make these changes next week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-validations
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/190,members
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>