> The argument boils down to there is a communications cost to adding 
> someone to core, and therefore there is a maximum size before the 
> communications burden becomes to great.

I'm definitely of the mindset that the core team is something that has a
maximum effective size. Nova is complicated and always changing; keeping
everyone on top of current development themes is difficult. Just last
week, we merged a patch that bumped the version of an RPC API without
making the manager tolerant of the previous version. That's a theme
we've had for a while, and yet it was still acked by two cores.

A major complaint I hear a lot is "one core told me to do X and then
another core told me to do !X". Obviously this will always happen, but I
do think that the larger and more disconnected the core team becomes,
the more often this will occur. If all the cores reviewed at the rate of
the top five and we still had a throughput problem, then evaluating the
optimal size would be a thing we'd need to do. However, even at the
current size, we have (IMHO) communication problems, mostly uninvolved
cores, and patches going in that break versioning rules. Making the team
arbitrarily larger doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

> I will say that I am disappointed that we have cores who don't
> regularly attend our IRC meetings. That makes the communication much
> more complicated.

Agreed. We alternate the meeting times such that this shouldn't be hard,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to