> On Mar 31, 2015, at 6:24 PM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com > <mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I am starting this thread based on Thierry's feedback on [0]. Instead of > writing the same thing twice, you can look at the rendered html from that > patch [1]. Neutron tried to go from core to maintainer but after input from > the TC and others, they are keeping the term 'core' but are clarifying what > it means to be a neutron core [2]. [2] does a very good job of showing how > what it means to be core is evolving. From > "everyone is a dev and everyone is a reviewer. No committers or repo owners, > no aristocracy. Some people just commit to do a lot of reviewing and keep > current with the code, and have votes that matter more (+2)." (Theirry) > To a system where cores are more then people who have votes that matter more. > Neutron's proposal tries to align that document with what is already > happening. > 1. They share responsibility in the project's success. > 2. They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the > project. > 3. They spend their time doing what needs to be done to ensure the projects > success, not necessarily what is the most interesting or fun. > > > I think there are a few issues at the heart of this debate: > > 1. Our current concept of a core team has never been able to grow past 20 or > so people, even for really big projects like nova and cinder. Why is that? > How do we delegate responsibility for subsystems? How do we keep growing? > 2. If everyone is just developers and reviewers who is actually responsible > for the projects success? How does that mesh with the ideal of no > 'aristocracy'? Do are early goals still make sense today? > > > > > Do you feel like a core deveper/reviewer (we initially called them core > developers) [1]: > In OpenStack a core developer is a developer who has submitted enough high > quality code and done enough code reviews that we trust their code reviews > for merging into the base source tree. It is important that we have a process > for active developers to be added to the core developer team. > Or a maintainer [1]: > 1. They share responsibility in the project’s success. > 2. They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the > project. > 3. They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what > is the most interesting or fun. > > Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to > appreciate. It’s easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced > feature. It’s harder to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady > improvement in stability, or the reliability of a release process. But those > things distinguish a good project from a great one. > > > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163660/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163660/> > [1] > http://docs-draft.openstack.org/60/163660/3/check/gate-governance-docs/f386acf//doc/build/html/resolutions/20150311-rename-core-to-maintainers.html > > <http://docs-draft.openstack.org/60/163660/3/check/gate-governance-docs/f386acf//doc/build/html/resolutions/20150311-rename-core-to-maintainers.html> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164208/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164208/> > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > > > Hey Joe, > > I mentioned in last weeks TC meeting that I didn't really see a burning need > to change or create new "labels"; but that's probably beside the point. So > if I read this it really comes down to a number of people in the community > want "core" to mean something more than "special reviewer" is that right? I > mean
Just my $0.02, but I think the intent is the exact opposite. Core reviewers already tend to be doing more than just reviewing. Maybe it’s a simple by-product of the review expertise translating into faster triage, or the relationships developed with other cores making maintenance tasks easier, or an indication that the folks with that much time just end up tending to be cores also, but regardless, the cores in a project end up being more than just reviewers. Which, again, could be coincidence more than title. The intent, as I understand it, is simply to attempt document what’s already going on, in preparation to *split* those responsibilities more, as the current scheme is not working/scaling for some projects. The name change, to me, is just distracting noise. Thanks, doug > regardless of whether you change the name from "core" to "maintainer" I > really don't care. If it makes some folks feel better to have that > title/label associated with themselves that's cool by me (yes I get the > *extra* responsibilities part you lined out). > > What is missing for me here however is "who picks these special people". I'm > convinced that this does more to promote the idea of "special" contributors > than anything else. Maybe that's actually what you want, but it seemed based > on your message that wasn't the case. > > Anyway, core nominations are fairly objective in my opinion and is *mostly* > based on number of reviews and perceived quality of those reviews (measured > somewhat by disagreement rates etc). What are the metrics for this special > group of folks that you're proposing we empower and title as maintainers? Do > I get to be a "maintainer", is it reserved for a special group of people, a > specific company? What's the criteria? Do *you* get to be a "maintainer"? > > What standards are *Maintainers* held to? Who/How do we decide he/she is > doing their job? Are there any rules about representation and interests > (keeping the team of people balanced). What about the work by those > "maintainers" that introduces more/new bugs? > > My feeling on this is that yes a lot of this sort of thing is happening > naturally on its own and that's a pretty cool thing IMO. What you're saying > though is you want to formalize it? Is the problem that people don't feel > like they're getting recognition or credit that they deserve? The "nobody > wants to work on the not fun stuff" I kinda get, and yeah.. that happens. > I'd argue though there are a good number of people that are however jumping > in on things outside of features. > > It's sort of funny looking back over the years. We used to complain over and > over that "we don't have enough reviewers", and that "reviewing is crucial > but under appreciated work". Since then there's all sorts of people striving > to spend time doing reviews and provide in some cases real constructive > feedback. > > Now we seem to be saying "reviewing isn't where it's at, anybody can do that; > bug fixes is the new coolness". I think there are others way to address this > by the way, possibly more effective ways. Heck, you could even do commit > credits; it costs five bug fixes to the overall project before you can commit > a feature (ok, don't take me seriously there). > > Maybe I'm misinterpreting some of this, maybe there's something in between. > Regardless I personally need a good deal more detail before I form my opinion. > > Thanks, > John > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > <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
