On 2015-04-01 14:35:22 -0700 (-0700), Maru Newby wrote: > I find your perspective on the term ‘core reviewer’ to be > interesting indeed, and for me it underscores the need to consider > whether using the term outside of gerrit is justified.
Agreed, that's why I said I'm worried that our community is enshrining an implementation detail, and ascribing something more to it than is warranted. Many of the people who have access to mark changes as ready to merge also do bug triage or undertake thankless refactoring of the code commons or set development priorities or write documentation or translate strings or... these are all valuable contributions within the community. Some of these require access to specific controls in our tools granted based on the trust of the community, while others do not, and many of us do more than just one of these things at a time too. There are certainly some nuanced relationships between various tasks, and how our community self-organizes determines some of this. However I'm not sure codifying it and wrapping those relationships in process and policy is always beneficial. I really just wanted to warn against the temptation I've seen for people to confuse the work being done (which is valuable) for the permissions needed to safely do some of that work (which is merely an implementation detail). Work which can be done without needing special permission is not necessarily any less valuable than that which requires addition to some access control; but since parties who don't understand our mostly non-hierarchical community can see those sets of access controls, they cling to them as a sign of importance and hierarchy of the people listed within. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
