>Adding in such case more bureaucracy (specs) is not the best way to resolve 
>team throughput issues...

I’d argue that  if fundamental design disagreements can be surfaced and debated 
at the design stage rather than first emerging on patch set XXX of an 
implementation, and be used to then prioritize what needs to be implemented 
then they do have a useful role to play.

Phil


From: Boris Pavlovic [mailto:bpavlo...@mirantis.com]
Sent: 28 August 2014 23:13
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Is the BP approval process broken?

Joe,


This is a resource problem, the nova team simply does not have enough people 
doing enough reviews to make this possible.

Adding in such case more bureaucracy (specs) is not the best way to resolve 
team throughput issues...

my 2cents


Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Joe Gordon 
<joe.gord...@gmail.com<mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Alan Kavanagh 
<alan.kavan...@ericsson.com<mailto:alan.kavan...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
I share Donald's points here, I believe what would help is to clearly describe 
in the Wiki the process and workflow for the BP approval process and build in 
this process how to deal with discrepancies/disagreements and build timeframes 
for each stage and process of appeal etc.
The current process would benefit from some fine tuning and helping to build 
safe guards and time limits/deadlines so folks can expect responses within a 
reasonable time and not be left waiting in the cold.


This is a resource problem, the nova team simply does not have enough people 
doing enough reviews to make this possible.

My 2cents!
/Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dugger, Donald D 
[mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com<mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com>]
Sent: August-28-14 10:43 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Is the BP approval process broken?

I would contend that that right there is an indication that there's a problem 
with the process.  You submit a BP and then you have no idea of what is 
happening and no way of addressing any issues.  If the priority is wrong I can 
explain why I think the priority should be higher, getting stonewalled leaves 
me with no idea what's wrong and no way to address any problems.

I think, in general, almost everyone is more than willing to adjust proposals 
based upon feedback.  Tell me what you think is wrong and I'll either explain 
why the proposal is correct or I'll change it to address the concerns.

Trying to deal with silence is really hard and really frustrating.  Especially 
given that we're not supposed to spam the mailing it's really hard to know what 
to do.  I don't know the solution but we need to do something.  More core team 
members would help, maybe something like an automatic timeout where BPs/patches 
with no negative scores and no activity for a week get flagged for special 
handling.

I feel we need to change the process somehow.

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Ph: 303/443-3786<tel:303%2F443-3786>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:44 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Is the BP approval process broken?

On 08/27/2014 09:04 PM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> I'll try and not whine about my pet project but I do think there is a
> problem here.  For the Gantt project to split out the scheduler there
> is a crucial BP that needs to be implemented (
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89893/ ) and, unfortunately, the BP
> has been rejected and we'll have to try again for Kilo.  My question
> is did we do something wrong or is the process broken?
>
> Note that we originally proposed the BP on 4/23/14, went through 10
> iterations to the final version on 7/25/14 and the final version got
> three +1s and a +2 by 8/5.  Unfortunately, even after reaching out to
> specific people, we didn't get the second +2, hence the rejection.
>
> I understand that reviews are a burden and very hard but it seems
> wrong that a BP with multiple positive reviews and no negative reviews
> is dropped because of what looks like indifference.

I would posit that this is not actually indifference. The reason that there may 
not have been >1 +2 from a core team member may very well have been that the 
core team members did not feel that the blueprint's priority was high enough to 
put before other work, or that the core team members did have the time to 
comment on the spec (due to them not feeling the blueprint had the priority to 
justify the time to do a full review).

Note that I'm not a core drivers team member.

Best,
-jay


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to