Open Stack

On 04/06/18 17:52, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-04 17:41:10 -0400:
>> On 02/06/18 13:23, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-01 15:19:46 -0400:
>>>> On 01/06/18 12:18, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Is that rule a sign of a healthy team dynamic, that we would want
>>>>> to spread to the whole community?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, this part I am pretty unsure about too. For some projects it
>>>> probably is. For others it may just be an unnecessary obstacle, although
>>>> I don't think it'd actually be *un*healthy for any project, assuming a
>>>> big enough and diverse enough team (which should be a goal for the whole
>>>> community).
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Another way to look at it would be that the perception of a conflict of
>> interest can be just as damaging to a community as somebody actually
>> acting on a conflict of interest, and thus having clearly-defined rules
>> to manage conflicts of interest helps protect everybody (and especially
>> the people who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest but
>> aren't, in fact, acting on it).
> 
> That's a reasonable perspective. Thanks for expanding on your original
> statement.
> 
>> Apparently enough people see it the way you described that this is
>> probably not something we want to actively spread to other projects at
>> the moment.
> 
> I am still curious to know which teams have the policy. If it is more
> widespread than I realized, maybe it's reasonable to extend it and use
> it as the basis for a health check after all.

At least Nova still does, judging by this comment from Matt Riedemann in 
January:

"For the record, it's not cool for two cores from the same company to be 
the sole +2s on a change contributed by the same company. Pretty 
standard operating procedure."

(on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523958/18)

When this thread started I looked for somewhere that was documented more 
permanently, but I didn't find it.

>> The appealing part of the idea to me was that we could stop pretending
>> that the results of our mindless script are objective - despite the fact
>> that both the subset of information to rely on and the limits in the
>> script were chosen by someone, in an essentially arbitrary way - and let
>> the decision rest on the expertise of those who are closest to the
>> project (and therefore have the most information), while aligning their
>> incentives with the needs of users so that they're not being asked to
>> keep their own score. I'm always on the lookout for opportunities to do
>> that, so I felt like I had to at least float it.
>>
>> The alignment goes both ways though, and if we'd be creating an
>> incentive to extend the coverage of a policy that is already
>> controversial then this is not the way forward.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Zane.
>>
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>