-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/02/2015 02:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
So, let me take a step back here. I would like to see at least 2 to
3x more people in a given project to feel empowered and have
badges, and make it possible for part time upstream developers to
hold
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
I cannot speak for all projects, but at least in Nova you have to be a
nova-core to be part of nova-drivers.
And would you
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
I cannot speak for all projects, but at least in Nova you
On 04/01/2015 06:07 PM, Ian Wienand wrote:
On 04/02/2015 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
but since parties who don't understand our mostly non-hierarchical
community can see those sets of access controls, they cling to them
as a sign of importance and hierarchy of the people listed within.
On 2 April 2015 at 03:07, Ian Wienand iwien...@redhat.com wrote:
IMO requiring two cores to approve *every* change is too much. What
we should do is move the responsibility downwards. Currently, as a
contributor I am only 1/3 responsible for my change making it through.
I write it, test
Le 02/04/2015 03:19, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 04/01/2015 12:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun
stuff and those who don't; it's
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
My main objection to the model you propose is its binary
nature. You
bundle core reviewing duties with drivers duties into a
On 02/04/15 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Maru Newby wrote:
[...] Many of us in the Neutron
community find this taxonomy restrictive and not representative
of all the work that makes the project possible.
We seem to be after the same end goal. I just disagree that renaming
core reviewers
Joe Gordon wrote:
My main objection to the model you propose is its binary nature. You
bundle core reviewing duties with drivers duties into a single
group. That simplification means that drivers have to be core reviewers,
and that core reviewers have to be drivers. Sure, a lot
Maru Newby wrote:
[...] Many of us in the Neutron
community find this taxonomy restrictive and not representative
of all the work that makes the project possible.
We seem to be after the same end goal. I just disagree that renaming
core reviewers to maintainers is a positive step toward that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/02/2015 03:22 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
I was originally pro giving a limited set of merge powers to
subteams for a specific codepath, but my personal experience made
me think that it can't work that way in Nova at the moment - just
On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Maru Newby wrote:
[...] Many of us in the Neutron
community find this taxonomy restrictive and not representative
of all the work that makes the project possible.
We seem to be after the same end goal. I just
Jay Pipes wrote:
On 04/01/2015 12:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun
stuff and those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the
On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2015 12:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun
stuff
On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Maru Newby wrote:
On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
What we need to do instead is reviving the drivers concept (we can
rename it maintainers if you really like that term), separate
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
My main objection to the model you propose is its binary nature. You
bundle core reviewing duties with drivers duties into a single
group. That simplification means that drivers have
On 03/31/2015 06:24 PM, John Griffith wrote:
What is missing for me here however is who picks these special people. I'm
convinced that this does more to promote the idea of special contributors than
anything else. Maybe that's actually what you want, but it seemed based on your
message that
John Griffith wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0].
Instead of writing the same thing twice, you can look at the
rendered html from that patch [1].
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Anita Kuno wrote:
I am really having a problem with a lack of common vision. Now this may
just be my problem here, and if it is, that is fine, I'll own that.
It's not just you.
But other folks, as Dean mentions above, do indicate in their language
that they feel
Joe Gordon wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead
of writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html from
that patch [1]. Neutron tried to go from core to maintainer but after
input from the TC and others, they are keeping the term 'core'
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
mailto:dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you feel like a core deveper/reviewer (we initially
On Wed, Apr 01 2015, Joshua Harlow wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun stuff and
those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the community to direct people
if they can (but also the same job of that leadership to understand that they
can't direct
On 04/01/2015 05:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead
of writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html from
that patch [1]. Neutron tried to go from core to maintainer but after
input from the
On 2015-04-01 11:41:29 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
We used[1] to have 4 groups for each project, mostly driven by the
need to put people in ACL groups. The PTL (which has ultimate
control), the Drivers (the trusted group around the PTL which had
control over blueprint targeting
On Wed, Apr 01 2015, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Responsibilities not tied to specific controls in our tools do exist
in abundance, but they tend to be more fluid and ad-hoc because in
most cases there's been no need to wrap authorization/enforcement
around them. What I worry is happening is that
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun stuff
and those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the community to direct
people if they can (but also the same job of that leadership to understand
On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:52 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
mailto:dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com
On 04/01/2015 12:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun
stuff and those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the
community to
On 04/02/2015 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
but since parties who don't understand our mostly non-hierarchical
community can see those sets of access controls, they cling to them
as a sign of importance and hierarchy of the people listed within.
There is no hierarchy for submitting code --
On 04/01/2015 03:23 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
The problem I see now, is that random people who has very little
knowledge of $PROJECT or OpenStack as its whole jump in random review
and put a -1 in Gerrit. And then never remove it. And then your patch is
stuck for ever in review. Probably because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/01/2015 06:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Right now there are some strong indications that there are areas we
are very weak at (nova network still being preferred to neutron
I don't think it's correct. As per latest summit survey [1],
Julien Danjou wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01 2015, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Responsibilities not tied to specific controls in our tools do exist
in abundance, but they tend to be more fluid and ad-hoc because in
most cases there's been no need to wrap authorization/enforcement
around them. What I worry is
Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
+1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun
stuff and those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the
community to direct people if
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead
of writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html from
that patch [1]. Neutron tried to go from core to
On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
And here is the crux of the situation, which I think bears
highlighting. These empowered groups are (or at least started out
as) nothing more than an attempt to map responsibilities onto the
ACLs available to our projects
On 1 April 2015 at 12:52, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Yes, these are not orthogonal ideas. The question should be rephrased to
'which description do you identify the most with: core
developer/reviewer or maintainer?'
- Some people are core reviewers and maintainers (or
On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-04-01 12:00:53 -0700 (-0700), Maru Newby wrote:
Given how important trust and relationships are to the functioning
of individual projects, I think we’re past the point where we
should allow our tooling to be the
On 2015-04-01 14:35:22 -0700 (-0700), Maru Newby wrote:
I find your perspective on the term ‘core reviewer’ to be
interesting indeed, and for me it underscores the need to consider
whether using the term outside of gerrit is justified.
Agreed, that's why I said I'm worried that our community
On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:52 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
- Some people are core reviewers and maintainers (or drivers, to reuse
the openstack terminology we already have for that)
- Some people are core reviewers only (because they can't commit 90% of
their work time to work
On 2015-04-01 12:00:53 -0700 (-0700), Maru Newby wrote:
Given how important trust and relationships are to the functioning
of individual projects, I think we’re past the point where we
should allow our tooling to be the limiting factor in how we
structure ourselves.
I'm definitely not
On 03/31/2015 08:46 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you feel like a core deveper/reviewer (we initially called them core
developers) [1]:
In OpenStack a core developer is a developer who has submitted enough high
quality
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:24 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead of
writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you feel like a core deveper/reviewer (we initially called them core
developers) [1]:
In OpenStack a core developer is a developer who has
On Mar 31, 2015, at 6:24 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com
mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead of
writing the same thing twice, you
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead of
writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html from that
patch [1]. Neutron tried to go from core to maintainer but after input
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you feel like a core deveper/reviewer (we initially called them core
developers) [1]:
In OpenStack a core developer is a developer who has submitted enough high
quality code and done enough code reviews that we trust
46 matches
Mail list logo
