On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Dolph Mathews <dolph.math...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Slow review: by limiting the number of blueprints up we hope to focus our >> efforts on fewer concurrent things >> slow code turn around: when a blueprint is given a slot (runway) we will >> first make sure the author/owner is available for fast code turnaround. >> >> If a blueprint review stalls out (slow code turnaround, stalemate in >> review discussions etc.) we will take the slot and give it to another >> blueprint. > > > How is that more efficient than today's do-the-best-we-can approach? It just > sounds like bureaucracy to me. > > Reading between the lines throughout this thread, it sounds like what we're > lacking is a reliable method to communicate review prioritization to core > reviewers.
AIUI, that is precisely what the proposed "slots" would do -- allow the PTL (or the drivers team) to reliably communicate review prioritization to the core review team, in a way that is *not* just more noise on IRC, and is visible to all contributors. -Deva _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev