Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-10 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-12-09 16:31:37 -0800:
 On 6 December 2013 21:56, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote:
 
 
  Hey there,
 
  thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current
  non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when UI was
  on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue working on designs
  much more, but I will also keep an eye on code which is going in. I believe
  that UX reviews will be needed before merging so that we assure keeping the
  vision. That's why I would like to express my will to stay within -core even
  when I don't deliver that big amount of reviews as other engineers. However
  if anybody feels that I should be just +1, I completely understand and I
  will give up my +2 power.
 
  -- Jarda
 
 Hey, so -
 
 I think there are two key things to highlight here. Firstly, there's
 considerable support from other -core for delaying the removals this
 month, so we'll re-evaluate in Jan (and be understanding then as there
 is a big 1-2 week holiday in there).
 
 That said, I want to try and break down the actual implications here,
 both in terms of contributions, recognition and what it means for the
 project.
 
 Firstly, contributions. Reviewing isn't currently *directly*
 recognised as a 'technical contribution' by the bylaws: writing code
 that land in the repository is, and there is a process for other
 contributions (such as design, UX, and reviews) to be explicitly
 recognised out-of-band. It's possible we should revisit that -
 certainly I'd be very happy to nominate people contributing through
 that means as a TripleO ATC irrespective of their landing patches in a
 TripleO code repository [as long as their reviews *are* helpful :)].
 But thats a legalistic sort of approach. A more holistic approach is
 to say that any activity that helps TripleO succeed in it's mission is
 a contribution, and we should be fairly broad in our recognition of
 that activity : whether it's organising contributed hardware for the
 test cloud, helping admin the test cloud, doing code review, or UX
 design - we should recognise and celebrate all of those things.
 Specifically, taking the time to write a thoughtful code review which
 avoids a bug landing in TripleO, or keeps the design flexible and
 effective *is* contributing to TripleO.
 
 We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
 focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
 that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
 responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments
 in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but
 the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get
 significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of
 trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive
 behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's
 not a new requirement place on -core. What I'd like to see is more of
 a focus on review (design review, code review, architecture review) as
 something we should all contribute towards - jointly share the burden.
 For instance, the summit is a fantastic point for us to come together
 and do joint design review of the work organisations are pushing on
 for the next 6 months : thats a fantastic contribution. But when
 organisations don't send people to the summit, because of $reasons,
 that reduces our entire ability to catch problems with that planned
 work : going to the summit is /hard work/ - long days, exhausting,
 intense conversations. The idea (which I've heard some folk mention)
 that only -core folk would be sent to the summit is incredibly nutty!
 

We are human.

Humans see a word like core and they look it up in their internal
dictionary. Apples have cores. Nuclear reactors have cores. You can
extract a core sample from deep under a sheet of ice. In our mind,
cores are at the _center_. The seeds are in the cores. Cores are where
all the magic happens. They hold the secrets.

So it makes sense that when not-core sees core, they think I should
defer to this person. They do not think I am a peer. If the code
review process were a nuclear reactor, they are just shielding, or vent
tubes. That person is part of _the core_.

And having +2/-2/+A reinforces this. Core does not have to say much,
they can speak softly and carry a big -2 stick.

Finally, being confirmed by the rest of the team makes them special. It
makes them a leader.

Can we change this? Before we run off and change everything, I think we
must also ask ourselves should we change this?

 So what does it mean for TripleO when someone stops being -core
 because of inactivity:
 
 Firstly it means they have *already* effectively stopped doing code
 review at a high frequency: they are *not* contributing in a
 substantial fashion through that avenue. It doesn't mean anything
 about other avenues of contribution.
 
 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-09 Thread Robert Collins
On 6 December 2013 21:56, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote:


 Hey there,

 thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current
 non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when UI was
 on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue working on designs
 much more, but I will also keep an eye on code which is going in. I believe
 that UX reviews will be needed before merging so that we assure keeping the
 vision. That's why I would like to express my will to stay within -core even
 when I don't deliver that big amount of reviews as other engineers. However
 if anybody feels that I should be just +1, I completely understand and I
 will give up my +2 power.

 -- Jarda

Hey, so -

I think there are two key things to highlight here. Firstly, there's
considerable support from other -core for delaying the removals this
month, so we'll re-evaluate in Jan (and be understanding then as there
is a big 1-2 week holiday in there).

That said, I want to try and break down the actual implications here,
both in terms of contributions, recognition and what it means for the
project.

Firstly, contributions. Reviewing isn't currently *directly*
recognised as a 'technical contribution' by the bylaws: writing code
that land in the repository is, and there is a process for other
contributions (such as design, UX, and reviews) to be explicitly
recognised out-of-band. It's possible we should revisit that -
certainly I'd be very happy to nominate people contributing through
that means as a TripleO ATC irrespective of their landing patches in a
TripleO code repository [as long as their reviews *are* helpful :)].
But thats a legalistic sort of approach. A more holistic approach is
to say that any activity that helps TripleO succeed in it's mission is
a contribution, and we should be fairly broad in our recognition of
that activity : whether it's organising contributed hardware for the
test cloud, helping admin the test cloud, doing code review, or UX
design - we should recognise and celebrate all of those things.
Specifically, taking the time to write a thoughtful code review which
avoids a bug landing in TripleO, or keeps the design flexible and
effective *is* contributing to TripleO.

We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments
in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but
the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get
significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of
trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive
behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's
not a new requirement place on -core. What I'd like to see is more of
a focus on review (design review, code review, architecture review) as
something we should all contribute towards - jointly share the burden.
For instance, the summit is a fantastic point for us to come together
and do joint design review of the work organisations are pushing on
for the next 6 months : thats a fantastic contribution. But when
organisations don't send people to the summit, because of $reasons,
that reduces our entire ability to catch problems with that planned
work : going to the summit is /hard work/ - long days, exhausting,
intense conversations. The idea (which I've heard some folk mention)
that only -core folk would be sent to the summit is incredibly nutty!

So what does it mean for TripleO when someone stops being -core
because of inactivity:

Firstly it means they have *already* effectively stopped doing code
review at a high frequency: they are *not* contributing in a
substantial fashion through that avenue. It doesn't mean anything
about other avenues of contribution.

Secondly, if they do notice something badly wrong with a patch, or a
patch that needs urgent landing, they can no longer do that
themselves: they need to find a -core and get the -core to do it.

Thats really about it - there is no substantial impact on the core
review bandwidth for the team (they were already largely inactive).

So, how does this apply to you specifically, and to the other Tuskar
UI folk who've been focused on Horizon itself and other things
recently

If you add a -1 to a patch, it should be treated with much the same
consideration as one from me: we all want to get good code in, and the
union of opinions should be fairly harmonious.

If you +1 a patch saying 'the design is great', it helps other folk
worry less about that, but we still have to care for the code, the API
implications etc.

If you (I'm speaking to everyone that I proposed in the 'should we
remove from -core?' section are planning on staying about the same
level of activity w.r.t. code review, then I don't think being in
-core makes a lot of sense. We're pretty up 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-09 Thread Joe Gordon
On Dec 10, 2013 2:37 AM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:

 On 6 December 2013 21:56, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote:

 
  Hey there,
 
  thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current
  non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when UI
was
  on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue working on
designs
  much more, but I will also keep an eye on code which is going in. I
believe
  that UX reviews will be needed before merging so that we assure keeping
the
  vision. That's why I would like to express my will to stay within -core
even
  when I don't deliver that big amount of reviews as other engineers.
However
  if anybody feels that I should be just +1, I completely understand and I
  will give up my +2 power.
 
  -- Jarda

 Hey, so -

 I think there are two key things to highlight here. Firstly, there's
 considerable support from other -core for delaying the removals this
 month, issue. I'll re-evaluate in Jan (and be understanding then as there
 is a big 1-2 week holiday in there).

 That said, I want to try and break down the actual implications here,
 both in terms of contributions, recognition and what it means for the
 project.

 Firstly, contributions. Reviewing isn't currently *directly*
 recognised as a 'technical contribution' by the bylaws: writing code
 that land in the repository is, and there is a process for other
 contributions (such as design, UX, and reviews) to be explicitly
 recognised out-of-band. It's possible we should revisit that -
 certainly I'd be very happy to nominate people contributing through
 that means as a TripleO ATC irrespective of their landing patches in a
 TripleO code repository [as long as their reviews *are* helpful :)].
 But thats a legalistic sort of approach. A more holistic approach is
 to say that any activity that helps TripleO succeed in it's mission is
 a contribution, and we should be fairly broad in our recognition of
 that activity : whether it's organising contributed hardware for the
 test cloud, helping admin the test cloud, doing code review, or UX
 design - we should recognise and celebrate all of those things.
 Specifically, taking the time to write a thoughtful code review which
 avoids a bug landing in TripleO, or keeps the design flexible and
 effective *is* contributing to TripleO.

 We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
 focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
 that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
 responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments
 in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but
 the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get
 significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of
 trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive
 behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's
 not a new requirement place on -core. What I'd like to see is more of
 a focus on review (design review, code review, architecture review) as
 something we should all contribute towards - jointly share the burden.
 For instance, the summit is a fantastic point for us to come together
 and do joint design review of the work organisations are pushing on
 for the next 6 months : thats a fantastic contribution. But when
 organisations don't send people to the summit, because of $reasons,
 that reduces our entire ability to catch problems with that planned
 work : going to the summit is /hard work/ - long days, exhausting,
 intense conversations. The idea (which I've heard some folk mention)
 that only -core folk would be sent to the summit is incredibly nutty!

 So what does it mean for TripleO when someone stops being -core
 because of inactivity:

 Firstly it means they have *already* effectively stopped doing code
 review at a high frequency: they are *not* contributing in a
 substantial fashion through that avenue. It doesn't mean anything
 about other avenues of contribution.

 Secondly, if they do notice something badly wrong with a patch, or a
 patch that needs urgent landing, they can no longer do that
 themselves: they need to find a -core and get the -core to do it.

 Thats really about it - there is no substantial impact on the core
 review bandwidth for the team (they were already largely inactive).

+1

Very well put, as you said this is a larger openstack issue, hopefully we
can fix this on the larger openstack scale and not just in tripleo.


 So, how does this apply to you specifically, and to the other Tuskar
 UI folk who've been focused on Horizon itself and other things
 recently

 If you add a -1 to a patch, it should be treated with much the same
 consideration as one from me: we all want to get good code in, and the
 union of opinions should be fairly harmonious.

 If you +1 a patch saying 'the design is great', it helps other folk
 worry less about that, but we 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-09 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:

 We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
 focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
 that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
 responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments
 in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but
 the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get
 significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of
 trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive
 behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's
 not a new requirement place on -core.

FWIW, I see the this focus on being -core as an often healthy desire
to be recognized as a good effective reviewer.

I guess that's related to where you said something similar in the Heat
thread:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg11121.html

  there is a meme going around (I don't know if it's true or not) that
  some people are assessed - performance review stuff within vendor
  organisations - on becoming core reviewers.

For example, if managers in these organizations said to people I want
to spend a significant proportion of your time contributing good and
effective upstream reviews that would be a good thing, right?

One way that such well intentioned managers could know whether the
reviewing is good and effective is whether the reviewers are getting
added to the -core teams. That also seems mostly positive. Certainly
better than looking at reviewer stats?

Mark.


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Jaromir Coufal


On 2013/06/12 00:33, Robert Collins wrote:

There isn't a plan yet, it's just discussion so far. I don't have a
strong feeling of consensus. Lets discuss it more real-time at the
coming TripleO meeting; and I suggest that the Horizon meeting should
also do that, and we can loop back to email with any new ideas or
concerns that that raised.

-Rob


+1, I added this topic to both agendas.

-- Jarda
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Ladislav Smola

On 12/05/2013 03:01 PM, James Slagle wrote:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:

On 5 December 2013 06:55, James Slagle james.sla...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins

Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.

What's the shorter than usual ramp up period?

You know, we haven't actually put numbers on it. But I'd be
comfortable with a few weeks of sustained involvement.

+1.  Sounds reasonable.


In general, I agree with your points about removing folks from core.

We do have a situation though where some folks weren't reviewing as
frequently when the Tuskar UI/API development slowed a bit post-merge.
  Since that is getting ready to pick back up, my concern with removing
this group of folks, is that it leaves less people on core who are
deeply familiar with that code base.  Maybe that's ok, especially if
the fast track process to get them back on core is reasonable.

Well, I don't think we want a situation where when a single org
decides to tackle something else for a bit, that noone can comfortably
fix bugs in e.g. Tuskar / or worse the whole thing stalls - thats why
I've been so keen to get /everyone/ in Tripleo-core familiar with the
entire collection of codebases we're maintaining.

So I think after 3 months that other cores should be reasonably familiar too ;).

Well, it's not so much about just fixing bugs.  I'm confident our set
of cores could fix bugs in almost any OpenStack related project, and
in fact most do.  It was more just a comment around people who worked
on the initial code being removed from core.  But, if others don't
share that concern, and in fact Ladislav's comment about having
confidence in the number of tuskar-ui guys still on core pretty much
mitigates my concern :).


Well if it would be possible, I would rather keep guys who want to be 
more active in core. It's true that most of us worked on Horizon till 
now, preparing libraries we will need.
And in next couple months, we will be implementing that in Tuskar-UI. So 
having more core who understands that will be beneficial.


Basically me and tzumainn are working on Tuskar-UI fulltime. And ifarkas 
and tomas-8c8 are familiar enough with the code, but will be working on 
other projects. So that seems
to me like a minimal number of cores to keep us rolling(if nobody gets 
sick, etc.).


We will need to get patches in at certain cadence to keep the 
deadlines(patches will also depend on each other blocking other people), 
so in certain cases a +1 one from a non core
guy I have a confidence in, regarding e.g. deep knowledge of Angular.js 
or Horizon will be enough for me to approve the patch.



That said, perhaps we should review these projects.

Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?

IMO, I'd like to see Tuskar UI stay in tripleo for now, given that we
are very focused on the deployment story.  And our reviewers are
likely to have strong opinions on that :).  Not that we couldn't go
review in Horizon if we wanted to, but I don't think we need the churn
of making that change right now.

So, I'll send my votes on the other folks after giving them a little
more time to reply.

Thanks.




___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Jaromir Coufal


On 2013/04/12 08:12, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

Hey there,

thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current 
non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when UI 
was on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue working on 
designs much more, but I will also keep an eye on code which is going 
in. I believe that UX reviews will be needed before merging so that we 
assure keeping the vision. That's why I would like to express my will to 
stay within -core even when I don't deliver that big amount of reviews 
as other engineers. However if anybody feels that I should be just +1, I 
completely understand and I will give up my +2 power.


-- Jarda
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Ladislav Smola

On 12/05/2013 11:40 AM, Jan Provaznik wrote:

On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

And the 90 day not-active-enough status:

|   jprovazn **|  220   5  10   7   177.3% | 2 (  
9.1%)  |
|jomara ** |  210   2   4  15  1190.5% | 2 (  
9.5%)  |
|mtaylor **|  173   6   0   8   847.1% | 0 (  
0.0%)  |
|   jtomasek **|  100   0   2   8  10   100.0% | 1 ( 
10.0%)  |
|jcoufal **|   53   1   0   1   320.0% | 0 (  
0.0%)  |


Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.



I will put more attention to reviews in future. Only a nit, it's quite 
a challenge to find something to review - most of the mornings I 
check pending patches everything is already reviewed ;).


Jan



Agreed. The policy of one review per day is not really what I do. I do 
go through all of the reviews and review as much as I can, because I 
can't be sure there will be something to review for me the

next day.
That takes me little more time than I would like. Though reviews are 
needed and I do learn new stuff.





___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Ladislav Smola

On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:


On 2013/04/12 08:12, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

Hey there,

thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current 
non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when 
UI was on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue working 
on designs much more, but I will also keep an eye on code which is 
going in. I believe that UX reviews will be needed before merging so 
that we assure keeping the vision. That's why I would like to express 
my will to stay within -core even when I don't deliver that big amount 
of reviews as other engineers. However if anybody feels that I should 
be just +1, I completely understand and I will give up my +2 power.




I wonder whether there can be a sort of honorary core title. jcoufal is 
contributing a lot, but not that much with code or reviews.


I vote +1 to that, if it is possible


-- Jarda


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread James Slagle
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Four responded and said they'd try to be more active in reviews, or at
least would like/try to be.

However, given that:

- Robert seems to be very consistent in reviewing core every month,
including giving folks plenty of heads up about removal.
- There is now a defined shorter ramp up period to get back on core
- the *average* of 1 review/day is a very low bar

I think it's prudent and can't really object to removing these
individuals from core, so +1 for the removal.


-- 
-- James Slagle
--

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Ben Nemec
 

On 2013-12-06 03:22, Ladislav Smola wrote: 

 On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: 
 
 On 2013/04/12 08:12, Robert Collins wrote: 
 
 Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
 date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
 time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
 with -core responsibilities.
 
 In this months review:
 - Ghe Rivero for -core
 - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
 - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
 - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
 - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
 - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core
 
 Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
 opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.
 
 Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
 Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
 substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
 let us know.
 
 Hey there,
 
 thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current non-coder 
 it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when UI was on hold and 
 I was designing future views. I'll continue working on designs much more, but 
 I will also keep an eye on code which is going in. I believe that UX reviews 
 will be needed before merging so that we assure keeping the vision. That's 
 why I would like to express my will to stay within -core even when I don't 
 deliver that big amount of reviews as other engineers. However if anybody 
 feels that I should be just +1, I completely understand and I will give up my 
 +2 power.

 I wonder whether there can be a sort of honorary core title. jcoufal is
contributing a lot, but not that much with code or reviews. 

What purpose would this serve? The only thing core gives you is the
ability to +2 in Gerrit. If you're not reviewing, core is meaningless.
It's great to contribute to the mailing list, but being core shouldn't
have any influence on that one way or another. This is a meritocracy
where suggestions are judged based on their value, not whether the
suggester has +2 ability (which honorary core wouldn't provide anyway, I
assume). At least that's the ideal. I think everyone following the
project is aware of Jaromir's contributions and a title isn't going to
change that one way or another. 

-Ben 
 ___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Ladislav Smola

On 12/06/2013 05:36 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:


On 2013-12-06 03:22, Ladislav Smola wrote:


On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:


On 2013/04/12 08:12, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

Hey there,

thanks Rob for keeping eye on this. Speaking for myself, as current 
non-coder it was very hard to keep pace with others, especially when 
UI was on hold and I was designing future views. I'll continue 
working on designs much more, but I will also keep an eye on code 
which is going in. I believe that UX reviews will be needed before 
merging so that we assure keeping the vision. That's why I would 
like to express my will to stay within -core even when I don't 
deliver that big amount of reviews as other engineers. However if 
anybody feels that I should be just +1, I completely understand and 
I will give up my +2 power.




I wonder whether there can be a sort of honorary core title. jcoufal 
is contributing a lot, but not that much with code or reviews.


What purpose would this serve?  The only thing core gives you is the 
ability to +2 in Gerrit.  If you're not reviewing, core is 
meaningless.  It's great to contribute to the mailing list, but being 
core shouldn't have any influence on that one way or another.  This is 
a meritocracy where suggestions are judged based on their value, not 
whether the suggester has +2 ability (which honorary core wouldn't 
provide anyway, I assume).  At least that's the ideal.  I think 
everyone following the project is aware of Jaromir's contributions and 
a title isn't going to change that one way or another.




Well. It's true. The only thing that comes to my mind is a swell dinner 
at summit. :-D



-Ben



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-12-03 23:12:39 -0800:
 Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
 date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
 time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
 with -core responsibilities.
 
 In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core

+1, We've been getting good reviews from Ghe for a while now. :)

  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

I suggest we delay this removal for 30 days. I know it is easy to add
them back in, but I hesitate to disrupt the flow if these people all
are willing to pick up the pace again. They may not have _immediate_
code knowledge but they should have enough historical knowledge that
has not gone completely stale in just the last 30-60 days.

What I'm suggesting is that review velocity will benefit from core being
a little more sticky, especially for sustained contributors who have
just had their attention directed elsewhere briefly.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-06 Thread Jay Dobies

On 12/06/2013 12:26 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-12-03 23:12:39 -0800:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core


+1, We've been getting good reviews from Ghe for a while now. :)


  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core


I suggest we delay this removal for 30 days.


For what it's worth, keep in mind the holidays coming up at the end of 
December. I suspect that trying to reevaluate 30 days from now will be 
even trickier when you have to take into account vacation times.




I know it is easy to add
them back in, but I hesitate to disrupt the flow if these people all
are willing to pick up the pace again. They may not have _immediate_
code knowledge but they should have enough historical knowledge that
has not gone completely stale in just the last 30-60 days.

What I'm suggesting is that review velocity will benefit from core being
a little more sticky, especially for sustained contributors who have
just had their attention directed elsewhere briefly.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Ladislav Smola

Hello,

+1 to core update. There are still enough Tuskar-UI guys in the core 
team I think.


Ladislav

On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

My approach to this caused some confusion a while back, so I'm going
to throw in some boilerplate here for a few more editions... - I'm
going to talk about stats here, but they
are only part of the picture : folk that aren't really being /felt/ as
effective reviewers won't be asked to take on -core responsibility,
and folk who are less active than needed but still very connected to
the project may still keep them : it's not pure numbers.

Also, it's a vote: that is direct representation by the existing -core
reviewers as to whether they are ready to accept a new reviewer as
core or not. This mail from me merely kicks off the proposal for any
changes.

But, the metrics provide an easy fingerprint - they are a useful tool
to avoid bias (e.g. remembering folk who are just short-term active) -
human memory can be particularly treacherous - see 'Thinking, Fast and
Slow'.

With that prelude out of the way:

Please see Russell's excellent stats:
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt

For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up so they
aren't caught by surprise.

Our merger with Tuskar has now had plenty of time to bed down; folk
from the Tuskar project who have been reviewing widely within TripleO
for the last three months are not in any way disadvantaged vs previous
core reviewers when merely looking at the stats; and they've had three
months to get familiar with the broad set of codebases we maintain.

90 day active-enough stats:

+--+---++
| Reviewer | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- % | Disagreements* |
+--+---++
|   lifeless **| 521   16 181   6 318 14162.2% |   16 (  3.1%)  |
| cmsj **  | 4161  30   1 384 20692.5% |   22 (  5.3%)  |
| clint-fewbar **  | 3792  83   0 294 12077.6% |   11 (  2.9%)  |
|derekh ** | 1960  36   2 158  7881.6% |6 (  3.1%)  |
|slagle ** | 1650  36  94  35  1478.2% |   15 (  9.1%)  |
|ghe.rivero| 1500  26 124   0   082.7% |   17 ( 11.3%)  |
|rpodolyaka| 1420  34 108   0   076.1% |   21 ( 14.8%)  |
|lsmola ** | 1011  15  27  58  3884.2% |4 (  4.0%)  |
|ifarkas **|  950  10   8  77  2589.5% |4 (  4.2%)  |
| jistr ** |  951  19  16  59  2378.9% |5 (  5.3%)  |
|  markmc  |  940  35  59   0   062.8% |4 (  4.3%)  |
|pblaho ** |  831  13  45  24   983.1% |   19 ( 22.9%)  |
|marios ** |  720   7  32  33  1590.3% |6 (  8.3%)  |
|   tzumainn **|  670  17  15  35  1574.6% |3 (  4.5%)  |
|dan-prince|  590  10  35  14  1083.1% |7 ( 11.9%)  |
|   jogo   |  570   6  51   0   089.5% |2 (  3.5%)  |


This is a massive improvement over last months report. \o/ Yay. The
cutoff line here is pretty arbitrary - I extended a couple of rows
below one-per-work-day because Dan and Joe were basically there - and
there is a somewhat bigger gap to the next most active reviewer below
that.

About half of Ghe's reviews are in the last 30 days, and ~85% in the
last 60 - but he has been doing significant numbers of thoughtful
reviews over the whole three months - I'd like to propose him for
-core.
Roman has very similar numbers here, but I don't feel quite as
confident yet - I think he is still coming up to speed on the codebase
(nearly all his reviews are in the last 60 days only) - but I'm
confident that he'll be thoroughly indoctrinated in another month :).
Mark is contributing great throughtful reviews, but the vast majority
are very recent - like Roman, I want to give him some 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Ladislav Smola

Hello,

so what is the plan? Tuskar-UI stays in tripleo until tripleo is part of 
the integrated release?


Thanks,
Ladislav

On 12/04/2013 08:44 PM, Lyle, David wrote:

On 5 December 2013 12:10, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:

-snip-


That said, perhaps we should review these projects.

Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?


This sounds reasonable to me.  The code base for TuskarUI is building on 
Horizon and we are planning on integrating TuskarUI into Horizon once TripleO 
is part of the integrated release.  The review skills and focus for TuskarUI is 
certainly more consistent with Horizon than the rest of the TripleO program.
  

-Rob


--
Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-David

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Jan Provaznik

On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

And the 90 day not-active-enough status:

|   jprovazn **|  220   5  10   7   177.3% |2 (  9.1%)  |
|jomara ** |  210   2   4  15  1190.5% |2 (  9.5%)  |
|mtaylor **|  173   6   0   8   847.1% |0 (  0.0%)  |
|   jtomasek **|  100   0   2   8  10   100.0% |1 ( 10.0%)  |
|jcoufal **|   53   1   0   1   320.0% |0 (  0.0%)  |

Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.



I will put more attention to reviews in future. Only a nit, it's quite a 
challenge to find something to review - most of the mornings I check 
pending patches everything is already reviewed ;).


Jan

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Imre Farkas

On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core

+1


  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core
As a many of them expressed their further interests in TripleO, I vote 
for keeping them in core for now and let's wait a couple weeks/month to 
see how the stats change.


Imre

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Jiří Stránský

On 4.12.2013 08:12, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core


+1


  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.


I vote for keeping in -core those who already expressed or will express 
intention to be more active in reviews, removal of the rest.


Jirka

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread James Slagle
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 On 5 December 2013 06:55, James Slagle james.sla...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins
 Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
 to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
 engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
 be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
 time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.

 What's the shorter than usual ramp up period?

 You know, we haven't actually put numbers on it. But I'd be
 comfortable with a few weeks of sustained involvement.

+1.  Sounds reasonable.


 In general, I agree with your points about removing folks from core.

 We do have a situation though where some folks weren't reviewing as
 frequently when the Tuskar UI/API development slowed a bit post-merge.
  Since that is getting ready to pick back up, my concern with removing
 this group of folks, is that it leaves less people on core who are
 deeply familiar with that code base.  Maybe that's ok, especially if
 the fast track process to get them back on core is reasonable.

 Well, I don't think we want a situation where when a single org
 decides to tackle something else for a bit, that noone can comfortably
 fix bugs in e.g. Tuskar / or worse the whole thing stalls - thats why
 I've been so keen to get /everyone/ in Tripleo-core familiar with the
 entire collection of codebases we're maintaining.

 So I think after 3 months that other cores should be reasonably familiar too 
 ;).

Well, it's not so much about just fixing bugs.  I'm confident our set
of cores could fix bugs in almost any OpenStack related project, and
in fact most do.  It was more just a comment around people who worked
on the initial code being removed from core.  But, if others don't
share that concern, and in fact Ladislav's comment about having
confidence in the number of tuskar-ui guys still on core pretty much
mitigates my concern :).

 That said, perhaps we should review these projects.

 Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
 TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
 generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
 as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
 perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
 base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?

IMO, I'd like to see Tuskar UI stay in tripleo for now, given that we
are very focused on the deployment story.  And our reviewers are
likely to have strong opinions on that :).  Not that we couldn't go
review in Horizon if we wanted to, but I don't think we need the churn
of making that change right now.

So, I'll send my votes on the other folks after giving them a little
more time to reply.

Thanks.

-- 
-- James Slagle
--

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Robert Collins
On 5 December 2013 09:12, Keith Basil kba...@redhat.com wrote:

 This sounds reasonable to me.  The code base for TuskarUI is building on 
 Horizon and we are planning on integrating TuskarUI into Horizon once 
 TripleO is part of the integrated release.  The review skills and focus for 
 TuskarUI is certainly more consistent with Horizon than the rest of the 
 TripleO program.

Tuskar specifically (TripleO as a program isn't integrated; the Tuskar
API project is what will get integrated).

 Focus is needed on the Horizon bits to ensure that we have something to build 
 on
 for the operator side of a deployment.  One possible concern here is that 
 the Horizon
 folk won't understand what's driving the UI need for Tuskar.

Horizon already has functionality for the operator side of
deployments, through admin specific functionality; I think it's
entirely appropriate for operator web UI work to be housed in Horizon.
I understand the concern that Horizon folk may not understand Tuskar -
but that concern applies to Neutron and Cinder and Murano and Savannah
and ... - as a UI layer for OpenStack, it's Horizon developers /role/
to come to understand the capabilities and needs of the API's they are
presenting to users. I am totally confident that they are up to the
task, particularly if the folk that are working on Tuskar are there to
help Horizon folk understand better!

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-05 Thread Robert Collins
On 5 December 2013 21:09, Ladislav Smola lsm...@redhat.com wrote:
 Hello,

 so what is the plan? Tuskar-UI stays in tripleo until tripleo is part of the
 integrated release?

 Thanks,
 Ladislav

There isn't a plan yet, it's just discussion so far. I don't have a
strong feeling of consensus. Lets discuss it more real-time at the
coming TripleO meeting; and I suggest that the Horizon meeting should
also do that, and we can loop back to email with any new ideas or
concerns that that raised.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Jiri Tomasek

Hi,

As the development of Tuskar-UI somehow stagnated recently, I have been 
focusing more on Horizon project lately to get features we need for 
Tuskar-UI. I acknowledge that I haven't been paying enough attention and 
reviews in TripleO. The statistics says it all. Although as the 
development of Tuskar-UI is about to rise rapidly, it would be nice to 
be able to give +2's here. I'll try to get up to speed with TripleO 
together with upcoming Tuskar-UI changes.


Jirka


On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

Hi,
 like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core
  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

My approach to this caused some confusion a while back, so I'm going
to throw in some boilerplate here for a few more editions... - I'm
going to talk about stats here, but they
are only part of the picture : folk that aren't really being /felt/ as
effective reviewers won't be asked to take on -core responsibility,
and folk who are less active than needed but still very connected to
the project may still keep them : it's not pure numbers.

Also, it's a vote: that is direct representation by the existing -core
reviewers as to whether they are ready to accept a new reviewer as
core or not. This mail from me merely kicks off the proposal for any
changes.

But, the metrics provide an easy fingerprint - they are a useful tool
to avoid bias (e.g. remembering folk who are just short-term active) -
human memory can be particularly treacherous - see 'Thinking, Fast and
Slow'.

With that prelude out of the way:

Please see Russell's excellent stats:
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt

For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up so they
aren't caught by surprise.

Our merger with Tuskar has now had plenty of time to bed down; folk
from the Tuskar project who have been reviewing widely within TripleO
for the last three months are not in any way disadvantaged vs previous
core reviewers when merely looking at the stats; and they've had three
months to get familiar with the broad set of codebases we maintain.

90 day active-enough stats:

+--+---++
| Reviewer | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- % | Disagreements* |
+--+---++
|   lifeless **| 521   16 181   6 318 14162.2% |   16 (  3.1%)  |
| cmsj **  | 4161  30   1 384 20692.5% |   22 (  5.3%)  |
| clint-fewbar **  | 3792  83   0 294 12077.6% |   11 (  2.9%)  |
|derekh ** | 1960  36   2 158  7881.6% |6 (  3.1%)  |
|slagle ** | 1650  36  94  35  1478.2% |   15 (  9.1%)  |
|ghe.rivero| 1500  26 124   0   082.7% |   17 ( 11.3%)  |
|rpodolyaka| 1420  34 108   0   076.1% |   21 ( 14.8%)  |
|lsmola ** | 1011  15  27  58  3884.2% |4 (  4.0%)  |
|ifarkas **|  950  10   8  77  2589.5% |4 (  4.2%)  |
| jistr ** |  951  19  16  59  2378.9% |5 (  5.3%)  |
|  markmc  |  940  35  59   0   062.8% |4 (  4.3%)  |
|pblaho ** |  831  13  45  24   983.1% |   19 ( 22.9%)  |
|marios ** |  720   7  32  33  1590.3% |6 (  8.3%)  |
|   tzumainn **|  670  17  15  35  1574.6% |3 (  4.5%)  |
|dan-prince|  590  10  35  14  1083.1% |7 ( 11.9%)  |
|   jogo   |  570   6  51   0   089.5% |2 (  3.5%)  |


This is a massive improvement over last months report. \o/ Yay. The
cutoff line here is pretty arbitrary - I extended a couple of rows
below one-per-work-day because Dan and Joe were basically there - and
there is a somewhat bigger gap to the next most active reviewer below
that.

About half of Ghe's reviews are in the last 30 days, and ~85% in the
last 60 - but he has been doing significant numbers of thoughtful
reviews over the whole three months - I'd like to propose him for
-core.
Roman has very 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Jordan OMara

On 04/12/13 12:07 +0100, Jiri Tomasek wrote:

Hi,

As the development of Tuskar-UI somehow stagnated recently, I have been  
focusing more on Horizon project lately to get features we need for  
Tuskar-UI. I acknowledge that I haven't been paying enough attention and  
reviews in TripleO. The statistics says it all. Although as the  
development of Tuskar-UI is about to rise rapidly, it would be nice to  
be able to give +2's here. I'll try to get up to speed with TripleO  
together with upcoming Tuskar-UI changes.


Jirka


I'm in exactly the same boat
--
Jordan O'Mara jomara at redhat.com
Red Hat Engineering, Raleigh 


pgpNoVY5J4YkJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Chris Jones
Hi

On 4 December 2013 07:12, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:

  - Ghe Rivero for -core


+1


  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core


I'm skipping voting on these for now, since not all have responded, but in
general I am +1 de-core-ing folk who have shifted their focus elsewhere and
I thank them for their efforts on TripleO to date, and hope that the winds
of time and focus, bring them back to us at some point in the future :)

Cheers,
-- 
Cheers,

Chris
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread James Slagle
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 In this months review:
  - Ghe Rivero for -core

+1.  Has been doing very good reviews.

  - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
  - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
  - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
  - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
  - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

 Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
 to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
 engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
 be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
 time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.

What's the shorter than usual ramp up period?

In general, I agree with your points about removing folks from core.

We do have a situation though where some folks weren't reviewing as
frequently when the Tuskar UI/API development slowed a bit post-merge.
 Since that is getting ready to pick back up, my concern with removing
this group of folks, is that it leaves less people on core who are
deeply familiar with that code base.  Maybe that's ok, especially if
the fast track process to get them back on core is reasonable.

-- 
-- James Slagle
--

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Robert Collins
On 5 December 2013 06:55, James Slagle james.sla...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins
 Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
 to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
 engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
 be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
 time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.

 What's the shorter than usual ramp up period?

You know, we haven't actually put numbers on it. But I'd be
comfortable with a few weeks of sustained involvement.

 In general, I agree with your points about removing folks from core.

 We do have a situation though where some folks weren't reviewing as
 frequently when the Tuskar UI/API development slowed a bit post-merge.
  Since that is getting ready to pick back up, my concern with removing
 this group of folks, is that it leaves less people on core who are
 deeply familiar with that code base.  Maybe that's ok, especially if
 the fast track process to get them back on core is reasonable.

Well, I don't think we want a situation where when a single org
decides to tackle something else for a bit, that noone can comfortably
fix bugs in e.g. Tuskar / or worse the whole thing stalls - thats why
I've been so keen to get /everyone/ in Tripleo-core familiar with the
entire collection of codebases we're maintaining.

So I think after 3 months that other cores should be reasonably familiar too ;).

That said, perhaps we should review these projects.

Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?

-Rob


-- 
Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Lyle, David
On 5 December 2013 12:10, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:

-snip-

 
 That said, perhaps we should review these projects.
 
 Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
 TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
 generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
 as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
 perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
 base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?


This sounds reasonable to me.  The code base for TuskarUI is building on 
Horizon and we are planning on integrating TuskarUI into Horizon once TripleO 
is part of the integrated release.  The review skills and focus for TuskarUI is 
certainly more consistent with Horizon than the rest of the TripleO program.
 
 -Rob
 
 
 --
 Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
 Distinguished Technologist
 HP Converged Cloud
 
 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-David

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-04 Thread Keith Basil
On Dec 4, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Lyle, David wrote:

 On 5 December 2013 12:10, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 
 -snip-
 
 
 That said, perhaps we should review these projects.
 
 Tuskar as an API to drive deployment and ops clearly belongs in
 TripleO - though we need to keep pushing features out of it into more
 generalised tools like Heat, Nova and Solum. TuskarUI though, as far
 as I know all the other programs have their web UI in Horizon itself -
 perhaps TuskarUI belongs in the Horizon program as a separate code
 base for now, and merge them once Tuskar begins integration?
 
 
 This sounds reasonable to me.  The code base for TuskarUI is building on 
 Horizon and we are planning on integrating TuskarUI into Horizon once TripleO 
 is part of the integrated release.  The review skills and focus for TuskarUI 
 is certainly more consistent with Horizon than the rest of the TripleO 
 program.

Focus is needed on the Horizon bits to ensure that we have something to build on
for the operator side of a deployment.  One possible concern here is that the 
Horizon
folk won't understand what's driving the UI need for Tuskar.

-k


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


[openstack-dev] [Tripleo] Core reviewer update Dec

2013-12-03 Thread Robert Collins
Hi,
like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.

In this months review:
 - Ghe Rivero for -core
 - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
 - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
 - Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
 - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
 - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core

Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.

Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri  Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.

My approach to this caused some confusion a while back, so I'm going
to throw in some boilerplate here for a few more editions... - I'm
going to talk about stats here, but they
are only part of the picture : folk that aren't really being /felt/ as
effective reviewers won't be asked to take on -core responsibility,
and folk who are less active than needed but still very connected to
the project may still keep them : it's not pure numbers.

Also, it's a vote: that is direct representation by the existing -core
reviewers as to whether they are ready to accept a new reviewer as
core or not. This mail from me merely kicks off the proposal for any
changes.

But, the metrics provide an easy fingerprint - they are a useful tool
to avoid bias (e.g. remembering folk who are just short-term active) -
human memory can be particularly treacherous - see 'Thinking, Fast and
Slow'.

With that prelude out of the way:

Please see Russell's excellent stats:
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt

For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up so they
aren't caught by surprise.

Our merger with Tuskar has now had plenty of time to bed down; folk
from the Tuskar project who have been reviewing widely within TripleO
for the last three months are not in any way disadvantaged vs previous
core reviewers when merely looking at the stats; and they've had three
months to get familiar with the broad set of codebases we maintain.

90 day active-enough stats:

+--+---++
| Reviewer | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A+/- % | Disagreements* |
+--+---++
|   lifeless **| 521   16 181   6 318 14162.2% |   16 (  3.1%)  |
| cmsj **  | 4161  30   1 384 20692.5% |   22 (  5.3%)  |
| clint-fewbar **  | 3792  83   0 294 12077.6% |   11 (  2.9%)  |
|derekh ** | 1960  36   2 158  7881.6% |6 (  3.1%)  |
|slagle ** | 1650  36  94  35  1478.2% |   15 (  9.1%)  |
|ghe.rivero| 1500  26 124   0   082.7% |   17 ( 11.3%)  |
|rpodolyaka| 1420  34 108   0   076.1% |   21 ( 14.8%)  |
|lsmola ** | 1011  15  27  58  3884.2% |4 (  4.0%)  |
|ifarkas **|  950  10   8  77  2589.5% |4 (  4.2%)  |
| jistr ** |  951  19  16  59  2378.9% |5 (  5.3%)  |
|  markmc  |  940  35  59   0   062.8% |4 (  4.3%)  |
|pblaho ** |  831  13  45  24   983.1% |   19 ( 22.9%)  |
|marios ** |  720   7  32  33  1590.3% |6 (  8.3%)  |
|   tzumainn **|  670  17  15  35  1574.6% |3 (  4.5%)  |
|dan-prince|  590  10  35  14  1083.1% |7 ( 11.9%)  |
|   jogo   |  570   6  51   0   089.5% |2 (  3.5%)  |


This is a massive improvement over last months report. \o/ Yay. The
cutoff line here is pretty arbitrary - I extended a couple of rows
below one-per-work-day because Dan and Joe were basically there - and
there is a somewhat bigger gap to the next most active reviewer below
that.

About half of Ghe's reviews are in the last 30 days, and ~85% in the
last 60 - but he has been doing significant numbers of thoughtful
reviews over the whole three months - I'd like to propose him for
-core.
Roman has very similar numbers here, but I don't feel quite as
confident yet - I think he is still coming up to speed on the codebase
(nearly all his reviews are in the last 60 days only) - but I'm
confident that he'll be thoroughly indoctrinated in another month :).
Mark is contributing great throughtful reviews, but the vast majority
are very recent - like Roman, I want to give him some more time
getting settled in with TripleO before proposing him for core.
Dan has a lower number of reviews but has been tracking fairly
consistently over the last