Open Stack

On 10/2/2019 4:18 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
> I like the >2-core idea, though the real difference would be asking for
> cores to consider "should we do this*in this cycle*" when they +2 a
> spec. Which is good and valid, but (I think) difficult to
> explain/track/quantify/validate. And it's asking each core to have some
> sense of the "big picture" (understand the scope of all/most of the
> candidates) which is very difficult.

Note that having that "big picture" is I think the main reason why 
historically, until very recently, there was a subgroup of the nova core 
team that was the specs core team, because what was approved in specs 
could have wide impacts to nova and thus knowing the big picture was 
important. I know that not all specs are the same complexity and we 
changed how the core team works for specs for good reasons, but given 
the years of "why aren't they the same core team? it's not fair." I 
wanted to point out it can be, as you said, very difficult to be a specs 
core for different reasons from a nova core.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt