Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-06-02 15:08:28 -0400: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-06-02 18:51:47 +0000: > > On 2018-06-02 13:23:24 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > > [...] > > > It feels like we would be saying that we don't trust 2 core reviewers > > > from the same company to put the project's goals or priorities over > > > their employer's. And that doesn't feel like an assumption I would > > > want us to encourage through a tag meant to show the health of the > > > project. > > [...] > > > > That's one way of putting it. On the other hand, if we ostensibly > > have that sort of guideline (say, two core reviewers shouldn't be > > the only ones to review a change submitted by someone else from > > their same organization if the team is large and diverse enough to > > support such a pattern) then it gives our reviewers a better > > argument to push back on their management _if_ they're being > > strongly urged to review/approve certain patches. At least then they > > can say, "this really isn't going to fly because we have to get a > > reviewer from another organization to agree it's in the best > > interests of the project" rather than "fire me if you want but I'm > > not approving that change, no matter how much your product launch is > > going to be delayed." > > Do we have that problem? I honestly don't know how much pressure other > folks are feeling. My impression is that we've mostly become good at > finding the necessary compromises, but my experience doesn't cover all > of our teams.
To all of the people who have replied to me privately that they have experienced this problem: We can't really start to address it until it's out here in the open. Please post to the list. Doug __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
