The heat-core team is responsible for reviewing all changes proposed to the following repositories:
- The OpenStack Orchestration service
- OpenStack Orchestration example/demo templates
- A Python library and command line client for the OpenStack Orchestration API
Note that everyone is encouraged to help review changes, even if you are not a member of this team. All reviews are very useful and are taken into account by the core team members. Participating in the review process is most critical task on the road to joining the team.
Adding or Removing Members
Any member of the core team may propose a new member at any time by sending an email to the openstack-dev list. However, anybody making such a proposal would be well-advised to contact the PTL first. This enables the PTL to co-ordinate any feedback received from the wider team, and communicate it to prospective candidates in private when appropriate.
Once a proposal has been made, five existing members of the core team must respond with a +1 for acceptance. If any existing member of the team objects, they may respond to the proposal with a -1 to veto the nomination.
A member of the team may be removed at any time by the PTL. This is typically due to a drop off of involvement by the member such that they are no longer meeting expectations to maintain team membership.
Membership in the heat-core team is a significant commitment and should not be taken lightly. Maintaining membership on this team takes a lot of time. Further, it is important that the time invested is consistent. It is harmful to the team and the project overall for the core team members' participation to be inconsistent.
Team members are expected to participate in code reviews on a regular (near daily) basis. Members are also expected to stay on top of discussions happening within the project, primarily on the openstack-dev mailing list. Note that IRC is also used quite heavily, so members should be in #heat on Freenode as much as they can. These activities are critical to be able to provide high quality reviews based on the current state of the project that are consistent with the reviews being done by others on the team and consistent with the documented review guidelines.
One metric used to determine the level of participation in reviews is just the number of reviews being done. While there is no hard line for an expectation on the number of reviews you are doing, members are generally expected to be in the same ballpark as the majority of the rest of the team. You can find stats on that here:
The number of reviews is certainly not the only important thing. It is also important that reviews are high quality, such that you gain respect from the other core team members over time. This is done by regularly providing high quality constructive criticism. Your well thought out recommendations for changes are what build credibility for your +1 of a patch.
Not all reviews are created equal. Team members should take care in prioritizing where they invest their review time. In general, priority should be based on the priority of the bug or blueprint the patch is associated with. Beyond that, older reviews should get priority. Take a look at the ReviewWorkflowTips page for tips on how to work prioritization into your workflow.