On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:43:21PM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > >> Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can > > >> focus > > >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand > > >> our > > >> cross project resources to cover these again. This doesn't mean removing > > >> anything. > > >> * Sahara > > >> * Trove > > >> * Tripleo > > > > > > You write as if cross-project efforts are both of fixed size and > > > amenable to centralized command & control. > > > > > > Neither of which is actually the case, IMO. > > > > > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large > > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not > > > necessarily divertable on command. > > > > What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in > > Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend that > > to other programs and say that each project needs at least one designated > > QA, Infra, Doc, etc. contact? > > Well my working assumption was that we were talking about people with > the appropriate domain knowledge who are focused primarily on standing > up the QA infrastructure. > > (as opposed to designated points-of-contact within the individual > project teams who would be the first port of call for the QA/infra/doc > folks if they needed a project-specific perspective on some live issue) > > That said however, I agree that it would be useful for the QA/infra/doc > teams to know who in each project is most domain-knowledgeable when they > need to reach out about a project-specific issue. >
I actually hadn't considered doing a formal liaison program, like Oslo, in QA before. Mostly, because at least myself and most of the QA cores have a decent grasp on who to ping about certain topics or reviews. That being said, I realize that probably is only disseminating information in a single direction. So maybe having a formal liaison makes sense. I'll talk to Doug and others about this and see whether adopting something similar for QA makes sense. -Matt Treinish
pgpaRczs8oI2y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
