On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote:
> 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 The Oslo liaison program started out as a pure communication channel, but many of the liaisons have stepped up to take on the task of merging changes into their “home” projects. That has allowed adoption of libraries this cycle at a rate far higher than we could have achieved if the Oslo team had been responsible for submitting those changes ourselves. They’ve helped us identify API issues in the process, which benefits the projects that have been slower to adopt. So I really think the liaisons are key to library graduation being successful at our current scale. Doug > _______________________________________________ > 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
