openstack/governance
Code Issues Proposed changes

Add principles entry for peer review

Browse Source 
During numerous discussions at the Vancouver 2018 Forum,
the topic of discouraging review cultural behaviors came
up repeatedly.

This has come up before, but never to the point where prior
community participants and leaders who took the opportunity
to reconnect with the community came into the room and
explicitly stated that it was the review culture as to
why they left.

The common frustration that was repeatedly raised was having
to revise patches over and over due to varying nitpicks where
negative feedback was left forcing the patch to be updated
in order to gain any additional review feedback.

We recognize that this is counter productive, and that we
need to change our review culture, so we are updating the
principles to express the aspects of peer review that we
value.

Co-Authored-By: Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com>
Change-Id: I3b615784824de2a15a911780fe8c37928f2c453e
This commit is contained in:
Julia Kreger 2018-05-29 05:55:12 -07:00
parent 735e8d251a
commit a1c444beed
1 changed files with 21 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

21
reference/principles.rst
View File

@ -47,6 +47,27 @@ leadership exists, that leadership is not solely responsible for change.
The entire OpenStack community is empowered to identify problems and, where
possible, assemble the teams to resolve them.
We Value Constructive Peer Review
---------------------------------
Peer review is a fundamental part of our culture. Reviewing submissions of
code and documentation helps us find mistakes and become better programmers
or writers. Peer review helps us build trust among team members and gives
us an opportunity to teach each other about different parts of our software,
CI system, and processes. Without the goodwill of contributors and reviewers,
we would have no community.
We want review comments to be constructive so that the review process fulfills
its purpose. We do not want reviews to be used to block contributions based on
minor issues, often called "nits". The focus should always be on incremental
improvement of the system as a whole, rather than ensuring each individual
change is perfect.
We encourage reviewers who find minor aspects of a change they feel need to
be changed, to engage the author in discussion versus downvoting, and
collaborate on how best to move the change forward. Often this may result
in a follow-up change, or revising the change under review.
One Contributor, One Vote
-------------------------