On 2015-11-25 14:02:47 +0800 (+0800), Tom Fifield wrote:
[...]
> Putting this out there - over at the Foundation, we're here to
> Protect and Empower you. So, if you've ever been reprimanded by
> management for choosing not to abuse the community process,
> perhaps we should arrange an education se
On 2015-11-23 21:20:56 + (+), David Chadwick wrote:
> Since the ultimate arbiter is the PTL, then it would be wrong to allow
> members of the same organisation as the PTL to perform all three code
> functions without the input of anyone from any other organisation. This
> places too much po
On 2015-11-24 11:43:26 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Right. The code is either in and supported by everyone, or out.
[...]
And as mentioned in Morgan's original post, it can be both at
different points in time. Contributions should be approved or not on
their own merits and not those of t
(919) 254-0680
From: Tom Fifield
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 11/25/2015 01:06 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][all] Move from active
distrusting model to trusting model
On 24/11/15 19:20, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> Scenarios I've been p
On 24/11/15 19:20, Dolph Mathews wrote:
Scenarios I've been personally involved with where the
"distrustful" model either did help or would have helped:
- Employee is reprimanded by management for not positively reviewing &
approving a coworkers patch.
- A team of employees is pressured to land
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
> I think one of the benefits of the current model was touched on earlier by
> dstanek. If someone is working on something for their organization, they
> typically bounce ideas of others they work with closely. This tends to be
> people withi
iling List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 11/24/2015 09:56 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][all] Move from active
distrusting model to trusting model
I think one of the benefits of the current model was touched on earlier by
dstanek. If someone is
I think one of the benefits of the current model was touched on earlier by
dstanek. If someone is working on something for their organization, they
typically bounce ideas of others they work with closely. This tends to be
people within the same organization. The groups developing the feature
might
Spot on. This is exactly the point I was trying to make
David
On 24/11/2015 11:20, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> Scenarios I've been personally involved with where the
> "distrustful" model either did help or would have helped:
>
> - Employee is reprimanded by management for not positively reviewing &
On 24 November 2015 at 06:21, Adam Young wrote:
>
> So, having been one of the initial architects of said policy, I'd like to
> reiterate what I felt at the time. The policy is in place as much to
> protect the individual contributors as the project. If I was put in a
> position where I had to
Scenarios I've been personally involved with where the "distrustful" model
either did help or would have helped:
- Employee is reprimanded by management for not positively reviewing &
approving a coworkers patch.
- A team of employees is pressured to land a feature with as fast as
possible. Minim
Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Brad Topol's message of 2015-11-23 13:38:34 -0800:
>> So to avoid the perception of a single company owning a piece of code, at
>> IBM our policy for major projects like Cinder, Nova and currently many
>> parts of Keystone (except pycadf) is to make sure we do no
On Mon, Nov 23 2015, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> What I would like us to do is to move to a trustful policy. I can
> confidently say that company affiliation means very little to me when I was
> PTL and nominating someone for core. We should explore making a change to a
> trustful model, and allow fo
Good, wide ranging discussion.
From my point of view, this isn’t about trusting cores, rather (as was pointed
out by others) ensuring people with different customer perspectives be part of
the approval. Of course, you could argue they could have -1’d it anyway, but I
think ensuring cross-compan
Excerpts from Adam Young's message of 2015-11-23 20:21:47 -0800:
> On 11/23/2015 11:42 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any
> > other project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit
> > from a sim
On 11/23/2015 11:42 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
Hi everyone,
This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any
other project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit
from a similar evaluation of the policy.
Most projects have a policy that prevents the follo
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM David Chadwick
wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > This is just a vote for distrusting the community. If you think there's
> > "power" in being able to merge things, and that organizations will abuse
> > this power, then you vote for distrust.
>
> No, rather for the abuse of pow
On 23/11/2015 21:59, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from David Chadwick's message of 2015-11-23 13:20:56 -0800:
>> Since the ultimate arbiter is the PTL, then it would be wrong to allow
>> members of the same organisation as the PTL to perform all three code
>> functions without the input of anyon
Excerpts from Brad Topol's message of 2015-11-23 13:38:34 -0800:
> So to avoid the perception of a single company owning a piece of code, at
> IBM our policy for major projects like Cinder, Nova and currently many
> parts of Keystone (except pycadf) is to make sure we do not do the
> following for
Excerpts from David Chadwick's message of 2015-11-23 13:20:56 -0800:
> Since the ultimate arbiter is the PTL, then it would be wrong to allow
> members of the same organisation as the PTL to perform all three code
> functions without the input of anyone from any other organisation. This
> places to
1 AM, Dmitry Tantsur ---11/23/2015 12:08:09 PM---On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Dmitry
> Tantsur wrote: > On 11/23/2015 05:42 P
>
> From: Morgan Fainberg
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: 11/23/2015 12:08 PM
> S
openstack-dev] [keystone][all] Move from active
distrusting model to trusting model
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Dmitry Tantsur
wrote:
On 11/23/2015 05:42 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
Hi everyone,
This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any
o
Since the ultimate arbiter is the PTL, then it would be wrong to allow
members of the same organisation as the PTL to perform all three code
functions without the input of anyone from any other organisation. This
places too much power in the hands of one organisation to the detriment
of the overall
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-11-23 09:17:06 -0800:
> 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 comp
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 giv
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Morgan Fainberg
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any other
> project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit from a
> similar evaluation of the policy.
>
> Most projects have a policy that
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:52 AM Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 05:42 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
>
[snip,snip]
> >
> > This type of policy is an actively distrustful policy.
>
I don't see it quite like that. I don't think the policy is there because
I'm not trusted t
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 05:42 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any
>> other project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit
>> from a similar evaluati
On 11/23/2015 05:42 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
Hi everyone,
This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any
other project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit
from a similar evaluation of the policy.
Most projects have a policy that prevents the followin
Hi everyone,
This email is being written in the context of Keystone more than any other
project but I strongly believe that other projects could benefit from a
similar evaluation of the policy.
Most projects have a policy that prevents the following scenario (it is a
social policy not enforced by
30 matches
Mail list logo
