Is this really a viable solution? I believe its more "democratic to ensure everyone gets a chance to present the blueprint" someone has spent time to write. This was no favoritism or biased view will ever take place and we let the community gauge the interest.
/Alan -----Original Message----- From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com] Sent: October-24-13 5:08 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Blueprint review process On 10/24/2013 10:52 AM, Gary Kotton wrote: > > > On 10/24/13 4:46 PM, "Dan Smith" <d...@danplanet.com> wrote: > >>> In the last meeting we discussed an idea that I think is worth >>> trying at least for icehouse-1 to see if we like it or not. The >>> idea is that >>> *every* blueprint starts out at a Low priority, which means "best >>> effort, but no promises". For a blueprint to get prioritized >>> higher, it should have 2 nova-core members signed up to review the >>> resulting code. >> >> Huge +1 to this. I'm in favor of the whole plan, but specifically the >> prioritization piece is very important, IMHO. > > I too am in favor of the idea. It is just not clear how 2 Nova cores > will be signed up. Good point, there was no detail on that. I propose just comments on the blueprint whiteboard. It can be something simple like this to indicate that Dan and I have agreed to review the code for something: "nova-core reviewers: russellb, dansmith" -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ 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
