On 04/02/2015 09:02 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
but since parties who don't understand our mostly non-hierarchical community can see those sets of access controls, they cling to them as a sign of importance and hierarchy of the people listed within.
There is no hierarchy for submitting code -- that is good. We all know situations in a traditional company where people say "that's foo's area, we don't work on that". Once code is submitted, there *is* a hierarchy. The only way something gets merged in OpenStack is by Brownian motion of this hierarchy. These special "cores" float around and as a contributor you just hope that two of them meet up and decide your change is ready. You have zero insight into when this might happen, if at all. The efficiency is appalling but somehow we get there in the end. IMO requiring two cores to approve *every* change is too much. What we should do is move the responsibility downwards. Currently, as a contributor I am only 1/3 responsible for my change making it through. I write it, test it, clean it up and contribute it; then require the extra 2/3 to come from the "hierarchy". If you only need one core, then core and myself share the responsibility for the change. In my mind, this better recognises the skill of the contributor -- we are essentially saying "we trust you". People involved in openstack are not idiots. If a change is controversial, or a reviewer isn't confident, they can and will ask for assistance or second opinions. This isn't a two-person-key system in a nuclear missile silo; we can always revert. If you want cores to be "less special" then talking about it or calling them something else doesn't help -- the only way is to make them actually less special. -i __________________________________________________________________________ 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
