charm teams

[Jorge O. Castro]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mark Mims <mark.mims at canonical.com> wrote:
> One potential negative ramification of this is that since we are
> diluting the set of people responsible for maintaining charm quality, we
> might start diluting charm quality.  In practice, I think this will
> result in quite the opposite outcome.  Stuart Bishop shouldn't be
> waiting on me to review his postgresql-related code ;)

+1 on the idea as a whole, my only concern would be that by bypassing
the larger group of ~charmers there would be a net loss of overall
cross-pollination of charming best practice across the board.

Also I'm not sure if we prefer a longer queue with more review or a
shorter queue with less review? Part of me aches that the queue is now
piling up, but at the same time I am glad we're taking our time with
each one.

We can probably start with the openstack charms first and perhaps
postgres and see how it goes?

-- 
Jorge Castro
Canonical Ltd.
http://juju.ubuntu.com