Oracle, Redhat, Mirantis, Servosity, 99cloud. Those are the biggest users, at least according to the reviews and commits.
I am not in favor of limiting the number of cores from a single company. However, it is an unwritten rule that I've heard and abide by that a company should not push a patch through. This means 2 people from the same company should not approve a third person from that same company's patch. I feel that is a decent rule to follow. On Feb 20, 2016 12:41 PM, "Joshua Harlow" <harlo...@fastmail.com> wrote: > Out of curiosity, who are kollas big users? > > If it's mirantis and redhat (and nobody much else?) then meh, does this > really matter. Sure work on getting more usage and adoption and other > companies interested but why stagnate a project (by doing this) while that > is underway? > > Other question; is kolla so influenced by mirantis or redhat management > that there isn't trust that things will be handled appropriately by smart > engineers/reviewers (that should not blindly listen to there management for > all the things, but think of the bigger picture). > > Just my 2 cents (I prefer trust rather than not and just curious what the > real concern here is, and what evidence from past examples shows that this > really is a concern in the first place). > > I will show myself out now, ha. > > -Josh > > On 02/20/2016 09:09 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> Mirantis has been developing a big footprint in the core review team, >> and Red Hat already has a big footprint in the core review team. These >> are all good things, but I want to avoid in the future a situation in >> which one company has a majority of core reviewers. Since core >> reviewers set policy for the project, the project could be harmed if one >> company has such a majority. This is one reason why project diversity >> is so important and has its own special snowflake tag in the governance >> repository. >> >> I'd like your thoughts on how to best handle this situation, before I >> trigger a vote we can all agree on. >> >> I was thinking of something simple like: >> "1 company may not have more then 33% of core reviewers. At the >> conclusion of PTL elections, the current cycle's 6 months of reviews >> completed will be used as a metric to select the core reviewers from >> that particular company if the core review team has shrunk as a result >> of removal of core reviewers during the cycle." >> >> Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns, etc? >> >> Regards, >> -steve >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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