Open Stack

On 2014-11-15 07:22:32 +1100 (+1100), Roland Chan wrote:
> On 15/11/2014 1:46 am, "Jeremy Stanley" <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > the truth is that work on these projects is entirely voluntary
> > and we have no effective way to enforce a decree like that.
> 
> I don't think that's entirely correct. A large, potentially
> overwhelming, majority of committers seem to be paid to work on
> OpenStack. Proof of this is that we manage to commit to and
> deliver a large number of features according to a rigorous
> schedule.
> 
> I do agree that we do not have a way to enforce this but the
> community could find one, I'm sure.
[...]

It's true that, for example, if Aptira wants to guarantee backports
of bug fixes to stable/juno then they can employ developers and
instruct them to focus on that task. However as a community the
feedback loop we have to solicit non-voluntary resource dedication
is somewhat limited (we can ask the Foundation Board, "hidden
influencers" and other member company representatives to assign
developers from their respective organizations, but this is no
guarantee said resources will appear and focus on what is
requested).

> > Also, because English is a terribly, terribly nuanced language,
> > I actually read that "may" as granting permission, not stating
> > an optional imperative in the RFC sense.
> 
> And that is correct but it isn't desirable, at least not to me.

You don't find it desirable that the stable reviewers are being
asked to allow backports of significant bug fixes to stable branches
now (as opposed to previous cycles where they only allowed critical
and security fixes)?
-- 
Jeremy Stanley