openstack-doc-core team mailing list archive

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxx>]

On 05/29/2015 12:07 AM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/05/15 22:55, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > On 05/28/2015 02:47 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:aj@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > >
> > >      On 05/28/2015 02:28 AM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> > >
> > >          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >          Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >          Hi everyone,
> > >
> > >          On the back of the 'Team Structure' Design Summit session, I've
> > >          decided
> > >          to implement the new core reviewer process as discussed. I've
> > >          written it
> > >          up on the HowTo:
> > >
> > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/HowTo#Achieving_core_reviewer_status
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      Please keep in mind that the stackalytics URL you give includes
> > >      security-doc and training-guides which have separate core teams, so
> > >      double check the entries.
> > >
> > >      I suggest to use reviewstats instead since it uses only the doc-core
> > >      repositories:
> > >
> > >      http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/docs-reviewers-30.txt
> > >      http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/docs-reviewers-90.txt

Do you want to link the above pages as well from the wiki page?

> > >      See also:
> > >
> > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/reviewstats/tree/projects/docs.json
>
> Ah, thanks, I'll update that.

What needs updating today? In general core changes need updates there, 
otherwise it's fine - isn't it?
> > >          I'll initiate the first round of statistics-based approvals on
> > >          Monday,
> > >          so now is the time to yell if you don't like this plan, or think
> > >          I have
> > >          something backwards. Of course, if we do this once or twice and
> > >          decide
> > >          it sucks, then we can always change it in the future, too.
> > >
> > >
> > >      Let's see how it works out ;) I'll yell when I see comments.
> > >
> > >      Btw. I think our last additions were a bit premature, I don't see
> > >      Alexander at all in the last 30 days ;(
>
> Yeah, you're not the only one to mention that. Hopefully doing this more
> frequently will help avoid that problem (or at least rectify in a
> shorter timeframe). I want to make sure that while we're not increasing
> the total number of cores, we're increasing the number of active and
> valuable cores.
>
> I'll also reach out to Alexander (and any others) personally.
>
> > > Ah, good point.
> > >
> > > Lana, your write up is very oriented toward "achievement" and I think
> > > that you'll need to also add how we want to rotate people off of core.
>
> OK, I see your point. I'll add something to that effect.
>
> > > Also, on timing. Is every month a bit too much churn especially once you
> > > start removing people from core?
> >
> > If we look at 30 and 90 stats, it shoiuld fine. People sure take
> > vacations and shouldn't be removed for one month of inactivity.
>
> Yes, I was hoping to pick a time shorter than the stats we use, for that
> reason.
>
> > > And then lastly, the debate always occurs about how "core" is not a
> > > badge but a review responsibility. How can we make it less of an
> > > "achievement" and more of a "responsibility" in the write-up?
> >
> >
> > I agree. core is really an extra responsibility!
>
> I'm not sure we should be playing it down too much. OpenStack is very
> good at discouraging people from stepping up (I got many more
> 'commiserations' than 'congratulations' on becoming PTL, for example).
> While I see the point (being core and PTL, etc is sometimes hard work),
> it seems like a really negative culture that I'm not entirely
> comfortable with. I'm happy to add that core team are expected to carry
> a heavier workload and be more visible and responsible, etc, but I also
> don't want to take away from the fact that working hard enough to
> achieve core is definitely a recognition of that work, and not just a
> punishment for failing not to be seen.

I think you found a good balance with your recent change, thanks!

Andreas

> > > Thanks for doing this work -- definitely needed.
> >
> > +1 ;)
>
> You're welcome :)



--
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton,
       HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126