Open Stack

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2018-06-05 16:09:24 +0000:
> That might not be a good idea. That may just push the problem underground as people are afraid to speak up publicly.
> 
> Perhaps an anonymous poll kind of thing, so that it can be counted publicly but doesn't cause people to fear retaliation?

I have no idea how to judge the outcome of any sort of anonymous
poll.  And I really don't want my inbox to become one. :-)

We do our best to make governance decisions openly, based on the
information we have. But in more cases than I like we end up making
assumptions based on extrapolating from a small number of experiences
relayed privately. I don't want to base a review diversity policy
that may end up making it harder to accept contribution on assumptions.

Maybe if folks aren't comfortable talking publicly, they can talk
to their PTLs privately? Then we can get a sense of which teams
feel this sort of pressure, overall, instead of individuals.

> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Doug Hellmann [doug at doughellmann.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:39 AM
> To: openstack-dev
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Organizational diversity tag
> 
> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-06-02 15:08:28 -0400:
> > 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.
> 
> To all of the people who have replied to me privately that they have
> experienced this problem:
> 
> We can't really start to address it until it's out here in the open.
> Please post to the list.
> 
> Doug
>