Flavio Percoco wrote: > During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the > things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving > to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing > these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my > concerns. > > Since I believe we all work with good faith and we *all* should assume > such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make > names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to > point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll > mention below know that I'm talking to them. > > This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project. > > ## Keep discussions open > > I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some > discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe > there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions. > HOWEVER, I believe it's *completely* wrong to consider those private > discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private > discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you > went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's > good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I > don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and > that you had enough consensus. > > Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at > the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a > community of people who *care* about the project they're working on. > This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much > sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a > private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details > of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the > discussion will basically start again... from scratch.
+100 > ## Mailing List vs IRC Channel > > I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is > hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I > don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong > to expect *EVERYONE* to be in the IRC channel when those discussions > happen. > > If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of > most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the > mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting > with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something > that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing > list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in > your discussion. *THAT'S A GOOD THING* > > Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list. > We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take > advantage of it? +1 > ## Cores are *NOT* special > > At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message > changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became > a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know > that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password > protected, irc channels for core reviewers. If those exist, I think they should die in a fire. I'm fine with the TC passing a resolution so that such channels are opened. Private channels where "real decisions" are made are pretty contrary to our ideal of open development. > This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short. > Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K? > > THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO > DISCUSS. > > If anything core reviewers should be the ones *FORCING* - it seems > that *encouraging* doesn't have the same effect anymore - *OPENNESS* in > order to include other non-core members in those discussions. > > Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that > person has provided and because that individual *WANTS* to be part of > it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to > be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked. +1000 Core reviewing has always be designed to be a duty, not a badge. There has been a trends toward making it a badge, with some companies giving bonuses to core reviewers, and HP making +2 pins and throwing +2 parties. I think that's a significant mistake and complained about it, but then my influence only goes that far. The problem with special rights (like +2) is that if you don't actively resist it, they naturally turn into an aristocracy (especially when only existing cores vote on new cores). That aristocracy then usually turns into a clique which is excluding new blood and new opinions, and then that project slowly dies. Thanks Flavio for this timely reminder. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev