Open Stack

On 2018-06-02 13:23:24 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> It feels like we would be saying that we don't trust 2 core reviewers
> from the same company to put the project's goals or priorities over
> their employer's.  And that doesn't feel like an assumption I would
> want us to encourage through a tag meant to show the health of the
> project.
[...]

That's one way of putting it. On the other hand, if we ostensibly
have that sort of guideline (say, two core reviewers shouldn't be
the only ones to review a change submitted by someone else from
their same organization if the team is large and diverse enough to
support such a pattern) then it gives our reviewers a better
argument to push back on their management _if_ they're being
strongly urged to review/approve certain patches. At least then they
can say, "this really isn't going to fly because we have to get a
reviewer from another organization to agree it's in the best
interests of the project" rather than "fire me if you want but I'm
not approving that change, no matter how much your product launch is
going to be delayed."

While I'd like to think a lot of us have the ability to push back on
those sorts of adverse influences directly, I have a feeling not
everyone can comfortably do so. On the other hand, it might also
just be easy enough to give one of your fellow reviewers in another
org a heads up that maybe they should take a look at that patch over
there and provide some quick feedback...
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180602/b29cc989/attachment.sig>