> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > Maru Newby wrote: >> [...] Many of us in the Neutron >> community find this taxonomy restrictive and not representative >> of all the work that makes the project possible. > > We seem to be after the same end goal. I just disagree that renaming > "core reviewers" to "maintainers" is a positive step toward that goal. > >> Worse, 'cores' >> are put on a pedastal, and not just in the project. Every summit >> a 'core reviewer dinner' is held that underscores the >> glorification of this designation. > > I deeply regret that, and communicated to the sponsor holding it the > problem with this "+2 dinner" the very first time it was held. FWIW it's > been renamed to "VIP dinner" and no longer limited to core reviewers, > but I'd agree with you that the damage was already done. > >> By proposing to rename 'core >> reviewer' to 'maintainer' the goal was to lay the groundwork for >> broadening the base of people whose valuable contribution could >> be recognized. The goal was to recognize not just review-related >> contributors, but also roles like doc/bug/test czar and cross-project >> liaison. The statue of the people filling these roles today is less >> if they are not also ‘core’, and that makes the work less attractive >> to many. > > That's where we disagree. You see renaming "core reviewer" to > "maintainer" has a way to recognize a broader type of contributions. I > see it as precisely resulting in the opposite. > > Simply renaming "core reviewers" to "maintainers" just keeps us using a > single term (or class) to describe project leadership. And that class > includes +2 reviewing duties. So you can't be a maintainer if you don't > do core reviewing. That is exclusive, not inclusive.
The important part of my statement above was ‘lay the groundwork for’. We were intended to change the name as a _precursor_ to changing the role itself to encompass more than just those with +2 rights. Nobody in their right mind would assume that changing the name by itself could fix the situation, but we thought it would be a good signal as to our intent to broaden the scope of recognized contribution. > What we need to do instead is reviving the "drivers" concept (we can > rename it "maintainers" if you really like that term), separate from the > "core reviewers" concept. One can be a project "driver" and a "core > reviewer". And one can be a project "driver" *without* being a "core > reviewer". Now *that* allows to recognize all valuable contributions, > and to be representative of all the work that makes the project possible. As Joe and I have said, Nova and Neutron already have drivers teams and they fill a different role from what you are suggesting. Can you think of a more appropriate name that isn’t already in use for what you are proposing? Maru __________________________________________________________________________ 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
