Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Carlos Camacho Gonzalez]

Hi guys!!!,

This is awesome, I really appreciate all the support/guidance and help
from you! The list is quite long, so forth, a big thanks for all of
you.

Cheers,
Carlos


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Steven Hardy  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:20:07AM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
>> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
>> several new contributors.
>>
>> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
>> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
>> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
>> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
>> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
>>
>> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
>> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
>> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
>> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
>>
>> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
>> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
>> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
>> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
>> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
>>
>> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
>> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
>> strongly otherwise :)
>>
>> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
>> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
>> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
>> their +2A power on (at least initially):
>>
>> 1. Brent Eagles
>>
>> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
>> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
>> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
>> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
>> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
>> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
>> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
>>
>> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
>>
>> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
>> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
>> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
>> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
>> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
>> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
>> time.
>>
>> 3. Carlos Camacho
>>
>> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
>> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
>> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
>> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
>> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
>> repos.
>>
>> 4. Ryan Brady
>>
>> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
>> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
>> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
>> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
>> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
>> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
>>
>> 5. Dan Sneddon
>>
>> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
>> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
>> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
>> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
>> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
>> reviews around networking in future.
>>
>> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
>> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
>> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
>> tripleo-core.
>
> Ok, so we got quite a few +1s and no objections, so I will go ahead and add
> the folks listed above to tripleo-core, congratulations (and thanks!) guys,
> keep up the great work! :)
>
> Steve
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Steven Hardy]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:20:07AM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
> 
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> 
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> 
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> 
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
> 
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
> 
> 1. Brent Eagles
> 
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> 
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> 
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
> 
> 3. Carlos Camacho
> 
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
> 
> 4. Ryan Brady
> 
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> 
> 5. Dan Sneddon
> 
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
> 
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.

Ok, so we got quite a few +1s and no objections, so I will go ahead and add
the folks listed above to tripleo-core, congratulations (and thanks!) guys,
keep up the great work! :)

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Dan Prince]

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 10:20 +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good
> time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
> 
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where
> many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project
> or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's
> hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and
> it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> 
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO
> architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem
> experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> 
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining
> subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to
> be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that
> it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the
> patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> 
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some
> of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
> 
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my
> own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these
> folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to
> focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
> 
> 1. Brent Eagles
> 
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron
> this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also
> provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I
> propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also
> expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> 
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> 
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around
> Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos
> over
> time.
> 
> 3. Carlos Camacho
> 
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a
> great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the
> transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain
> this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in
> other
> repos.
> 
> 4. Ryan Brady
> 
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new
> Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion
> have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with
> review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> 
> 5. Dan Sneddon
> 
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small
> number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and
> the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan
> continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help
> with
> reviews around networking in future.
> 
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free
> to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the
> process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.
> 
> Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on
> this
> list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of
> those
> folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now,
> please
> don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about
> it.  Also
> note the following:
> 
>  - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term
> pattern of
>    doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of
> reviews,
>    it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
>    insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues
> early.
> 
>  - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Sanjay Upadhyay]

+1 to all.
we got a lot of constructive inputs and help from @beagles and @dsneddon.
/sanjay

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Jason Rist  wrote:

> On 09/15/2016 03:20 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good
> time
> > to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> > several new contributors.
> >
> > We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> > folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> > area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> > going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> > fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> >
> > We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO
> architecture
> > in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> > and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> > the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> >
> > We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining
> subteams,
> > vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> > used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> > totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> > looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> >
> > So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of
> our
> > subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> > strongly otherwise :)
> >
> > The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> > experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these
> folks
> > - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> > their +2A power on (at least initially):
> >
> > 1. Brent Eagles
> >
> > Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> > cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> > understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also
> provided
> > a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> > Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> > his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> > Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> >
> > 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> >
> > Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> > and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> > challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> > feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> > continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> > expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> > time.
> >
> > 3. Carlos Camacho
> >
> > Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great
> job
> > of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> > writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the
> transition
> > to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> > focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in
> other
> > repos.
> >
> > 4. Ryan Brady
> >
> > Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> > based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion
> have
> > consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> > actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> > velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> > interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> >
> > 5. Dan Sneddon
> >
> > For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> > architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number
> of
> > very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> > network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> > this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> > reviews around networking in future.
> >
> > Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to
> +1
> > these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> > wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> > tripleo-core.
> >
> > Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on
> this
> > list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
> > folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now,
> please
> > don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about it.  Also
> > note the following:
> >
> >  - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern
> of
> >doing useful reviews, but 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Jason Rist]

On 09/15/2016 03:20 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
> 
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> 
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> 
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> 
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
> 
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
> 
> 1. Brent Eagles
> 
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> 
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> 
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
> 
> 3. Carlos Camacho
> 
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
> 
> 4. Ryan Brady
> 
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> 
> 5. Dan Sneddon
> 
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
> 
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.
> 
> Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on this
> list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
> folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now, please
> don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about it.  Also
> note the following:
> 
>  - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern of
>doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of reviews,
>it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
>insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues early.
> 
>  - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of
>expertise, to build understanding of the broader TripleO system - as
>discussed 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[John Trowbridge]

On 09/15/2016 05:20 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
> 
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> 
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> 
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> 
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
> 
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
> 
> 1. Brent Eagles
> 
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> 
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> 
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
> 
> 3. Carlos Camacho
> 
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
> 
> 4. Ryan Brady
> 
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> 
> 5. Dan Sneddon
> 
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
> 
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.
> 
> Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on this
> list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
> folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now, please
> don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about it.  Also
> note the following:
> 
>  - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern of
>doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of reviews,
>it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
>insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues early.
> 
>  - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of
>expertise, to build understanding of the broader TripleO system - as
>discussed 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[James Slagle]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Steven Hardy  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
>
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
>
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
>
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
>
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
>
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
>
> 1. Brent Eagles
>
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
>
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
>
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
>
> 3. Carlos Camacho
>
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
>
> 4. Ryan Brady
>
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
>
> 5. Dan Sneddon
>
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
>
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.

+1 to all.

-- 
-- James Slagle
--

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Dougal Matthews]

On 15 September 2016 at 10:20, Steven Hardy  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
>
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
>
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
>
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
>
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
>
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
>
> 1. Brent Eagles
>
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
>
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
>
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
>
> 3. Carlos Camacho
>
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the
> transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
>
> 4. Ryan Brady
>
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
>
> 5. Dan Sneddon
>
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
>
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.
>
> Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on this
> list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
> folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now, please
> don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about it.  Also
> note the following:
>
>  - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern of
>doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of reviews,
>it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
>insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues early.
>
>  - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of
>expertise, to build understanding of the broader TripleO system - as
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Giulio Fidente]

On 09/15/2016 11:20 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:

Hi all,

As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
several new contributors.

We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).

We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).

We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
looks OK but is outside their area of experience).

So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
strongly otherwise :)

The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
- I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
their +2A power on (at least initially):

1. Brent Eagles

Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.

2. Pradeep Kilambi

Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
time.

3. Carlos Camacho

Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
repos.

4. Ryan Brady

Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.

5. Dan Sneddon

For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
reviews around networking in future.

Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
tripleo-core.


+1

espcially in this project, diversification is a strategy!


 - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern of
   doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of reviews,
   it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
   insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues early.

 - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of
   expertise, to build understanding of the broader TripleO system - as
   discussed above subsystem experts are a good thing, but we also need
   to see some appreciation of the broader Tripleo archticture &
   interfaces (all the folks above have demonstrated solid knowledge of one
   or more of our primary interfaces, e.g the Heat or the Mistral layer)


thanks for sharing these ^^
--
Giulio Fidente
GPG KEY: 08D733BA | IRC: gfidente

__
OpenStack 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Marios Andreou]

On 15/09/16 12:20, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
> 
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
> 
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
> 
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).
> 
> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
> 
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
> 
> 1. Brent Eagles
> 
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.
> 
> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
> 
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.
> 
> 3. Carlos Camacho
> 
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.
> 
> 4. Ryan Brady
> 
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.
> 
> 5. Dan Sneddon
> 
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
> this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
> reviews around networking in future.
> 
> Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
> these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
> wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
> tripleo-core.

+1 from me - haven't worked directly with everyone on the list but I
have been witness to excellent contributions both in code and review
comments from all*

thanks, marios



* fwiw - @beagles I first noticed with the excellent reviews and
comments when folks started moving the neutron to composable,
@pradk from the ceilo/aodh work, @camacho - too many things to mention
;), @rbrady from the mistral/tripleocommon/client work, and @dsneddon
has been a long time contributor and as shardy said wrote the initial
network reference architecture and did a lot of the implementation for
'network isolation' in tripleo.



> 
> Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on this
> list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
> folks I've already reached out 

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Emilien Macchi]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Steven Hardy  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
> to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
> several new contributors.
>
> We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
> folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
> area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
> going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
> fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).
>
> We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
> in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
> and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
> the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).
>
> We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
> vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
> used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
> totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
> looks OK but is outside their area of experience).

While I think this is good because our team is respectful about this
rule, I'm still thinking that's something we might want to revisit one
day.
In Puppet OpenStack, we created subgroups for specific modules because
some people were contributing to one modules and had one area of
expertise (ie: keystone for puppet-keystone), etc.

I guess we're fine now but having subgroups could help us to scale our
team by more proposing people working on a specific project more
quickly. Also, as long as we keep creating projects, it's not clear to
me who can really +2 a patch in this project.
Having subgroups would just clarify it. Anyway, this is not a critical
topic today but I might propose a change in the next months.

> So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
> subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
> strongly otherwise :)
>
> The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
> experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
> - I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
> their +2A power on (at least initially):
>
> 1. Brent Eagles
>
> Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
> cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
> understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
> a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
> Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
> his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
> Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.

Big +1. And not because he's Canadian :-)
Seriously, Brent, you're doing a great job and I'm looking forward to
seeing your next contributions to make networking better in TripleO.

> 2. Pradeep Kilambi
>
> Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
> and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
> challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
> feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
> continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
> expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
> time.

Same comment as Brent, Prad is always here to fix or improve Telemetry
things in TripleO. Keep going please :-)

> 3. Carlos Camacho
>
> Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
> of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
> writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
> to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
> focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
> repos.

Carlos was very helpful for composability work during the cycle, +1!

> 4. Ryan Brady
>
> Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
> based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
> consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
> actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
> velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
> interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.

Yes! Ryan has dramatically contributed to this topic, he deserves core
review on tripleo-common and tripleoclient.

> 5. Dan Sneddon
>
> For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
> architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
> very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
> network 

[openstack-dev] [TripleO] TripleO Core nominations

[Steven Hardy]

Hi all,

As we work to finish the last remaining tasks for Newton, it's a good time
to look back over the cycle, and recognize the excellent work done by
several new contributors.

We've seen a different contributor pattern develop recently, where many
folks are subsystem experts and mostly focus on a particular project or
area of functionality.  I think this is a good thing, and it's hopefully
going to allow our community to scale more effectively over time (and it
fits pretty nicely with our new composable/modular architecture).

We do still need folks who can review with the entire TripleO architecture
in mind, but I'm very confident folks will start out as subsystem experts
and over time broaden their area of experience to encompass more of
the TripleO projects (we're already starting to see this IMO).

We've had some discussion in the past[1] about strictly defining subteams,
vs just adding folks to tripleo-core and expecting good judgement to be
used (e.g only approve/+2 stuff you're familiar with - and note that it's
totally fine for a core reviewer to continue to +1 things if the patch
looks OK but is outside their area of experience).

So, I'm in favor of continuing that pattern and just welcoming some of our
subsystem expert friends to tripleo-core, let me know if folks feel
strongly otherwise :)

The nominations, are based partly on the stats[2] and partly on my own
experience looking at reviews, patches and IRC discussion with these folks
- I've included details of the subsystems I expect these folks to focus
their +2A power on (at least initially):

1. Brent Eagles

Brent has been doing some excellent work mostly related to Neutron this
cycle - his reviews have been increasingly detailed, and show a solid
understanding of our composable services architecture.  He's also provided
a lot of valuable feedback on specs such as dpdk and sr-iov.  I propose
Brent continues this exellent Neutron focussed work, while also expanding
his review focus such as the good feedback he's been providing on new
Mistral actions in tripleo-common for custom-roles.

2. Pradeep Kilambi

Pradeep has done a large amount of pretty complex work around Ceilomenter
and Aodh over the last two cycles - he's dealt with some pretty tough
challenges around upgrades and has consistently provided good review
feedback and solid analysis via discussion on IRC.  I propose Prad
continues this excellent Ceilomenter/Aodh focussed work, while also
expanding review focus aiming to cover more of t-h-t and other repos over
time.

3. Carlos Camacho

Carlos has been mostly focussed on composability, and has done a great job
of working through the initial architecture implementation, including
writing some very detailed initial docs[3] to help folks make the transition
to the new architecture.  I'd suggest that Carlos looks to maintain this
focus on composable services, while also building depth of reviews in other
repos.

4. Ryan Brady

Ryan has been one of the main contributors implementing the new Mistral
based API in tripleo-common.  His reviews, patches and IRC discussion have
consistently demonstrated that he's an expert on the mistral
actions/workflows and I think it makes sense for him to help with review
velocity in this area, and also look to help with those subsystems
interacting with the API such as tripleoclient.

5. Dan Sneddon

For many cycles, Dan has been driving direction around our network
architecture, and he's been consistently doing a relatively small number of
very high-quality and insightful reviews on both os-net-config and the
network templates for tripleo-heat-templates.  I'd suggest Dan continues
this focus, and he's indicated he may have more bandwidth to help with
reviews around networking in future.

Please can I get feedback from exisitng core reviewers - you're free to +1
these nominations (or abstain), but any -1 will veto the process.  I'll
wait one week, and if we have consensus add the above folks to
tripleo-core.

Finally, there are quite a few folks doing great work that are not on this
list, but seem to be well on track towards core status.  Some of those
folks I've already reached out to, but if you're not nominated now, please
don't be disheartened, and feel free to chat to me on IRC about it.  Also
note the following:

 - We need folks to regularly show up, establishing a long-term pattern of
   doing useful reviews, but core status isn't about raw number of reviews,
   it's about consistent downvotes and detailed, well considered and
   insightful feedback that helps increase quality and catch issues early.

 - Try to spend some time reviewing stuff outside your normal area of
   expertise, to build understanding of the broader TripleO system - as
   discussed above subsystem experts are a good thing, but we also need
   to see some appreciation of the broader Tripleo archticture &
   interfaces (all the folks above have demonstrated solid knowledge of one
   or more of our primary interfaces, e.g