On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 07:38:42AM -0430, Flavio Percoco wrote: > I'm sorry but no. I don't think there's anything that requires extra > patience than 2 (or even more) cycles without provaiding reviews or > even any kind of active contribution. > > I personally don't think adding new cores without cleaning up that > list is something healthy for our community, which is what we're > trying to improve here. Therefore I'm still -2-W on adding new folks > without removing non-active core members. > > >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. > > The list contains the names of ppl that have not provided *any* kind > of review in the last 2 cycles. If there are folks in that list that > you think shouldn't be there, please, bring them up now. If there are > folks you think *should* be in that list, please, bring them on now. > > There's nothing unpolite in what's being discussed here. The proposal > is based on the facts that these folks seem to be focused in different > things now and that's perfectly fine. > > As I mentioned in my first email, we're not questioning their > knowledge but their focus and they are more than welcome to join > again. > > I do not think *counting* the stats of everyone makes sense here, > we're not competing on who reviews more patches. That's nonsense. > We're just trying to keep the list of folks that will have the power > to approve patches short. > > >To answer your concerns: (Why was this not proposed earlier in the cycle?) > > [snip] ? > > >The essence of the matter is: > > > >We need to change the dynamics slowly and with patience for maintaining a > >good > >balance. > > As I mentioned above, I don't think we're being impatient. As a matter > of fact, some of this folks haven't been around in *years* so, pardon > my stubborness but I believe we have been way to patient and I'd have > loved this folks to step down themselves. > > I infinitely thank these folks past work and efforts (and hopefully > future works too) but I think it's time for us to have a clearer view > of who's working in the project. > > As a last note, it's really important to have the list of members > updated, some folks rely on that to know who are the contacts for some > projects.
As one of the people in the proposed group of cores, I agree with Flavio. This is something routinely done in other projects, and I don't see why we should be any different. Louis
signature.asc
Description: 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