Hi fellow core reviewers, Harm joined Kolla early on with great enthusiasm and did a bang-up job for several months working on Kolla. We voted unanimously to add him to the core team. Over the last 6 months Harm hasn't really made much contribution to Kolla. I have spoken to him about it in the past, and he indicated his work and other activities keep him from being able to execute the full job of a core reviewer and nothing environmental is changing in the near term that would improve things.
I faced a similar work/life balance problem when working on Magnum as a core reviewer and also serving as PTL for Kolla. My answer there was to step down from the Magnum core reviewer team [1] because Kolla needed a PTL more then Magnum needed a core reviewer. I would strongly prefer if folks don't have the time available to serve as a Kolla core reviewer, to step down as was done in the above example. Folks that follow this path will always be welcome back as a core reviewer in the future once they become familiar with the code base, people, and the project. The other alternative to stepping down is for the core reviewer team to vote to remove an individual from the core review team if that is deemed necessary. For future reference, if you as a core reviewer have concerns about a fellow core reviewer's performance, please contact the current PTL who will discuss the issue with you. I propose removing Harm from the core review team. Please vote: +1 = remove Harm from the core review team -1 = don't remove Harm from the core review team Note folks that are voted off the core review team are always welcome to rejoin the core team in the future once they become familiar with the code base, people, and the project. Harm is a great guy, and I hope in the future he has more time available to rejoin the Kolla core review team assuming this vote passes with simple majority. It is important to explain why, for some folks that may be new to a core reviewer role (which many of our core reviewers are), why a core reviewer should have their +2/-2 voting rights removed when they become inactive or their activity drops below an acceptable threshold for extended or permanent periods. This hasn't happened in Harm's case, but it is possible that a core reviewer could approve a patch that is incorrect because they lack sufficient context with the code base. Our core reviewers are the most important part of ensuring quality software. If the individual has lost context with the code base, their voting may be suspect, and more importantly the other core reviewers may not trust the individual's votes. Trust is the cornerstone of a software review process, so we need to maximize trust on a technical level between our core team members. That is why maintaining context with the code base is critical and why I am proposing a vote to remove Harm from the core reviewer team. On a final note, folks should always know, joining the core review team is never "permanent". Folks are free to move on if their interests take them into other areas or their availability becomes limited. Core Reviewers can also be removed by majority vote. If there is any core reviewer's performance you are concerned with, please contact the current PTL to first work on improving performance, or alternatively initiating a core reviewer removal voting process. On a more personal note, I want to personally thank Harm for his many and significant contributions to Kolla and especially going above and beyond by taking on the responsibility of a core reviewer. Harm's reviews were always very thorough and very high quality, and I really do hope in the future Harm will rejoin the Kolla core team. Regards, -steve [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-October/077844.html
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
