Open Stack

>> I do agree that we do not have a way to enforce this but the
>> community could find one, I'm sure.
> [...]
>
> 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).

That is the current situation, the question I'm asking is whether a
change to the current arrangement is desirable or even necessary.

The community has very little commitment to stability, as we can see
in this thread, only setting the standards at what is permissible not
what is required or expected. Is that producing what operators want? I
don't believe so, and I don't feel that acquiescing to the status quo
is going to yield better results.

> 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)?

That's not what I'm saying, what I am saying is that "may" is
necessary but not sufficient. A stronger statement of intent like
"should" is desirable.

Roland