Open Stack

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-06-02 18:51:47 +0000:
> 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."

Do we have that problem? I honestly don't know how much pressure other
folks are feeling. My impression is that we've mostly become good at
finding the necessary compromises, but my experience doesn't cover all
of our teams.

> 
> 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...