[cyborg] Proposing core reviewers
zhipengh512 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 00:00:37 UTC 2020
This is a good point on making clarity on the contributor side, wasn't
thinking about that.
Re "be restored" my thoughts were that if anyone comes back, and not as
core member, they should follow the process and be nominated/elected again.
If a previous inactive core being deleted and then come back just restored,
it is also problematic :) That is also why I suggested not to presumptively
remove inactive cores.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 00:17 +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Big +1 for Brin and shogo's nomination and well deserved :)
> > I'm a little bit concerned over the 18 months period. The original rule
> > setup is volunteer step down, since this is a small team we want to
> > acknowledge everyone that has made significant contributions. Some of the
> > inactive core reviewers like Justin Kilpatrick have moved on a long time
> > ago, and I don't see people like him could do any harm to the project.
> > But if the core reviewer has a size limit in the system, that would be
> > reasonable to replace the inactive ones with the new recruits :)
> it is generally considerd best pratice to maintian the core team adding or
> people based on there activity. if a core is removed due to in activity
> and they
> come back they can always be restored but it give a bad perception if a
> project has
> like 20 core but only 2 are active. as a new contibutor you dont know
> which ones are
> active and it can be frustrating to reach out to them and get no responce.
> also just form a project healt point of view it make the project look like
> its more diverse
> or more active then it actully is which is also not generally a good thing.
> that said core can step down if they feel like they can contribute time
> when ever they like so and if a core is steping a way for a few months but
> intends to
> come back they can also say that in advance and there is no harm in
> leaving them
> for a cycle or two but in general after a period of in activity (usally
> more then a full release/6months)
> i think its good to reduce back down the core team.
> > Just my two cents
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:19 PM Nadathur, Sundar <
> sundar.nadathur at intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > > Brin Zhang has been actively contributing to Cyborg in various
> > > adding new features, improving quality, reviewing patches, and
> > > helping others in the community. Despite the relatively short time, he
> > > been one of the most prolific contributors, and brings an enthusiastic
> > > active mindset. I would like to thank him and acknowledge his
> > > contributions by proposing him as a core reviewer for Cyborg.
> > >
> > > Shogo Saito has been active in Cyborg since Train release. He has been
> > > driving the Cyborg client improvements, including its revamp to use
> > > OpenStackSDK. Previously he was instrumental in the transition to
> Python 3,
> > > testing and fixing issues in the process. As he has access to real FPGA
> > > hardware, he brings a users’ perspective and also tests Cyborg with
> > > hardware. I would like to thank and acknowledge him for his steady
> > > contributions, and propose him as a core reviewer for Cyborg.
> > >
> > > Some of the currently listed core reviewers have not been participating
> > > for a lengthy period of time. It is proposed that those who have had no
> > > contributions for the past 18 months – i.e. no participation in
> > > no code contributions and no reviews – be removed from the list of core
> > > reviewers.
> > >
> > > If no objections are made known by March 20, I will make the changes
> > > proposed above.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sundar
> > >
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service
Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss