So I’m +1 on giving these cores notice and perhaps voting on their removal separately (as was recently done in another project or two).
Perhaps the way to compromise here would be to submit a change to the relevant documentation in Glance outlining when a core can be removed (or when the proposal to remove them can be made) including the fact that existing cores are not exempt. Detailing the process will be good for everyone, existing active cores, existing inactive cores, and new cores (like myself). It will also give us the ability to say to a new core “please keep these guidelines in mind and understand that if your priorities change, we will remove you (without malice) to keep the core list concise and to keep momentum at the desired level.” I have no issue discussing this proposal and having it land for Liberty. I also do not see a reason why we shouldn’t reach out to those existing inactive cores to explain to them the situation and ask them if they would rather remove themselves before we vote to have them removed. I don’t think any of them will disagree that they haven’t done the work necessary to maintain core-status during Kilo. To answer Nikhil’s questions: I think Flavio picked out a handful of people as an example. I doubt he deliberately skipped over some for any reason other than wishing to reply quickly. Is there a list of people that have done little to no reviews and submitted few if not any changes during Kilo that are currently cores? If so, we should be answering the following: - Who are they? - How many of them are there? - If they’re already inactive, how would removing them hurt forward progress in Glance? - Has anyone reached out to them individually? I agree we should move forward in a way that will not alienate people, and in a way that not only appears fair to everyone else, but is fair. I would hope none of these people would take remove personally since Glance’s continued momentum and progress is not a personal reflection on any of them (it should only reflect those who are actively participating in the project). On 3/3/15, 10:10, "Nikhil Komawar" <nikhil.koma...@rackspace.com> wrote: >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> >Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:26 AM >To: Daniel P. Berrange; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage >questions) >Cc: 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> >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