Morgan Fainberg wrote: > [...] > With all that said, here is the proposal I would like to set forth: > > 1. Code reviews still need 2x Core Reviewers (no change) > 2. Code can be developed by a member of the same company as both core > reviewers (and approvers). > 3. If the trust that is being given via this new policy is violated, the > code can [if needed], be reverted (we are using git here) and the actors > in question can lose core status (PTL discretion) and the policy can be > changed back to the "distrustful" model described above. > > I hope that everyone weighs what it means within the community to start > moving to a trusting-of-our-peers model. I think this would be a net win > and I'm willing to bet that it will remove noticeable roadblocks [and > even make it easier to have an organization work towards stability fixes > when they have the resources dedicated to it]. > > Thanks for your time reading this.
+1 There are so many ways to abuse strict rules that it's better to have a loose, trust-by-default policy and a strong history of fixing the mistakes and abuses whenever they arise. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
