As a relatively new member of the openstack community I think the idea of a mentorship program is a good one; I'd like to throw my hat in the ring if the kolla community needs a guinea-pig to try this on. :)
Rich On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:53 PM Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/12/2017 3:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > > Matt, > > > > Thanks for the response. It is helpful. > > > > Regards > > -steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> > > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 4:36 PM > > To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][nova] Starting a core reviewer > mentorship program for Kolla deliverables > > > > On 4/12/2017 11:59 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > In today’s Kolla team meeting, the idea was proposed of adopting > nova’s > > > “protocore” mentorship program for Kolla. We would like to know > what > > > nova has learned from this effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > In today’s Kolla meeting we had broad consensus on the following: > > > > > > 1) Kolla has participants that want to be core reviewers > > > > > > 2) These participants don’t know how to become core reviewers > > > > > > 3) The core reviewers in Kolla should mentor “protocore” > reviewers > > > on how to do good reviews > > > > > > > > > > > > From that, we concluded some form of mentorship program for > potential > > > core reviewers was in order. We got into some debate about > _/how/_ the > > > program should be rolled out. Let’s use this thread to discuss > how it > > > should be rolled out since that seems to be the sticking point of > the > > > discussion. I saw no dissent in the discussion that the basic > concepts > > > were a negative change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am aware that nova uses a +1 review from a “protocore” and a > +2/+w > > > from a core reviewer prior to merge. Nova cores – would you mind > > > defining your process (on the ml is fine) more thoroughly and your > > > experiences so we can learn from you? > > > > > > > > > > > > All kolla contributors, feel free to debate the **how** such a > > > mentorship program should be rolled out. I think we have a lot to > learn > > > from our peers in the OpenStack community and learning from their > > > experiences may be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > -steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > Nova has this thing? That's news to me. :) > > > > I don't think Nova has a formal process for something like this. > There > > was talk at the BCN summit about giving some people +2 rights on > parts > > of the tree but not full core on everything. We never implemented > that. > > > > Maybe what you're referring to is how we consider a +1 from a domain > > expert like a +2, or at least something that's good to have before > cores > > are looking into the change in more detail? For example, gibi is the > > lead for the versioned notifications effort and we/I generally look > for > > his +1 on a change before digging into it, or approving it. We have > > similar unofficial things like this in other parts of Nova, or > subteams, > > like Timofey and Pawel with the live migration subteam. > > > > To be sure, someone that is leading a subteam effort and is looked to > > for their opinion on a whole series of changes eventually gets into > the > > conversation when we're talking about potential core reviewers, in > part > > because, at least I personally, am looking for not only strong code > > review skills but also leadership/ownership within the project, > because > > those are also the people that tend to stick around awhile so I'm > more > > comfortable investing my time into them (and building a trust > > relationship with them). > > > > So that's all unofficial non-formal stuff and basically grew up > > organically around the subteam efforts that started several releases > > ago. I don't know if this helps you or not. > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > By the way, I should add, while we look for a +1 from a subteam or > domain expert, it does not equate to a +2 so that a core can come along > and +2/+W. We still require 2 +2s. > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev