If it was not clear in my previous message, I would like to again emphasize 
that I truly appreciate the vigor and intent behind Flavio's proposal. We need 
to be proactive and keep making the community better in such regards.


However, at the same time we need to act fairly, with patience and have a 
friendly strategy for doing the same (thus maintaining a good balance in our 
progress). I should probably respond to another thread on ML mentioning my 
opinion that the community's success depends on "trust" and "empathy" and 
everyone's intent as well as effort in maintaining these principles. Without 
them, it will not take very long to make the situation chaotic.


The questions I poised are still unanswered:

There are a few members who have been relatively inactive this cycle in terms 
of reviews and have been missed in Flavio's list (That list is not 
comprehensive). On what basis have some of them been missed out and if we do 
not have strong reason, are we being fair? Again, I would like to emphasize 
that, cleaning of the list in such proportions at this point of time does NOT 
look OK strategy to me.


To answer your concerns: (Why was this not proposed earlier in the cycle?)

There are multiple reasons which are hard to be put in words because they are 
subtle and guided the momentum at that point of time. I agree that this was 
indeed proposed in the beginning of K cycle however, with less enthusiasm from 
all the members. Only a select few were insistent and democratically, it got 
deprioritized. There were other major concerns to be handled like position of 
the community members on some of the newer features. That in turn would have 
guided, the commitment from some of the members to the Glance program (probably 
based on their other priorities).


Hence, I think coming with a good plan during the feature freeze period 
including when and how are we going to implement it, when would be a final 
draft of cores to be rotated be published, etc. questions would be answered 
with _patience_ and input from other cores. We would have a plan in K so, that 
WOULD be a step forward as discussed in the beginning and be implemented in L, 
ensuring out empathetic stand.


The essence of the matter is:

We need to change the dynamics slowly and with patience for maintaining a good 
balance.


Best,
-Nikhil
________________________________
From: Kuvaja, Erno <kuv...@hp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:48 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Daniel P. 
Berrange
Cc: krag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations.

Nikhil,

If I recall correctly this matter was discussed last time at the start of the 
L-cycle and at that time we agreed to see if there is change of pattern to 
later of the cycle. There has not been one and I do not see reason to postpone 
this again, just for the courtesy of it in the hopes some of our older cores 
happens to make review or two.

I think Flavio’s proposal combined with the new members would be the right way 
to reinforce to momentum we’ve gained in Glance over past few months. I think 
it’s also the right message to send out for the new cores (including you and 
myself ;) ) that activity is the key to maintain such status.


-          Erno

From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:nikhil.koma...@rackspace.com]
Sent: 03 March 2015 04:47
To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 
questions)
Cc: krag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations.


Hi all,



After having thoroughly thought about the proposed rotation and evaluating the 
pros and cons of the same at this point of time, I would like to make an 
alternate proposal.



New Proposal:

  1.  We should go ahead with adding more core members now.
  2.  Come up with a plan and give additional notice for the rotation. Get it 
implemented one month into Liberty.

Reasoning:



Traditionally, Glance program did not implement rotation. This was probably 
with good reason as the program was small and the developers were working 
closely together and were aware of each others' daily activities. If we go 
ahead with this rotation it would be implemented for the first time and would 
appear to have happened out-of-the-blue.



It would be good for us to make a modest attempt at maintaining the friendly 
nature of the Glance development team, give them additional notice and 
preferably send them a common email informing the same. We should propose at 
least a tentative plan for rotation so that all the other core members are 
aware of their responsibilities. This brings to my questions, is the poposed 
list for rotation comprehensive? What is the basis for missing out some of 
them? What would be a fair policy or some level of determinism in expectations? 
I believe that we should have input from the general Glance community (and the 
OpenStack community too) for the same.



In order for all this to be sorted out, I kindly request all the members to 
wait until after the k3 freeze, preferably until a time at which people would 
have a bit more time in their hand to look at their mailboxes for unexpected 
proposals of rotation. Once a decent proposal is set, we can announce the 
change-in-dynamics of the Glance program and get everyone interested familiar 
with it during the summit. Whereas, we should not block the currently active 
to-be-core members from doing great work. Hence, we should go ahead with adding 
them to the list.



I hope that made sense. If you've specific concerns, I'm free to chat on IRC as 
well.



(otherwise) Thoughts?


Cheers,
-Nikhil
________________________________
From: Alexander Tivelkov <ativel...@mirantis.com<mailto:ativel...@mirantis.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:26 AM
To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 
questions)
Cc: krag...@gmail.com<mailto:krag...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Core nominations.

+1 on both proposals: rotation is definitely a step in right direction.



--
Regards,
Alexander Tivelkov

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrange 
<berra...@redhat.com<mailto:berra...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:47:18AM +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 24/02/15 08:57 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >On 24/02/15 04:38 +0000, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I would like to propose the following members to become part of the Glance 
> >>core
> >>team:
> >>
> >>Ian Cordasco
> >>Louis Taylor
> >>Mike Fedosin
> >>Hemanth Makkapati
> >
> >Please, yes!
>
> Actually - I hope this doesn't come out harsh - I'd really like to
> stop adding new cores until we clean up our current glance-core list.
> This has *nothing* to do with the 4 proposals mentioned above, they
> ALL have been doing an AMAZING work.
>
> However, I really think we need to start cleaning up our core's list
> and this sounds like a good chance to make these changes. I'd like to
> propose the removal of the following people from Glance core:
>
> - Brian Lamar
> - Brian Waldon
> - Mark Washenberger
> - Arnaud Legendre
> - Iccha Sethi
> - Eoghan Glynn
> - Dan Prince
> - John Bresnahan
>
> None of the folks in the above list have neither provided reviews nor
> have they participated in Glance discussions, meetings or summit
> sessions. These are just signs that their focus have changed.
>
> While I appreciate their huge efforts in the past, I think it's time
> for us to move forward.
>
> It goes without saying that all of the folks above are more than
> welcome to join the glance-core team again if their focus goes back to
> Glance.
Yep, rotating out inactive members is an important step to ensure that
the community has clear view of who the current active leadership is.

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to