[openstack-dev] Technical Committee membership evolution

Wojciech Dec wdec.ietf at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 18:38:41 UTC 2013

On 15 January 2013 16:52, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> The OpenStack Technical Committee, representation of the technical
> contributors to the project, is currently composed of 13 members, the 8
> "core" projects PTLs and 5 directly-elected members.
> We are considering adding more projects in the integrated release in the
> future, but adding more PTLs with guaranteed TC seats doesn't really
> scale, quickly leading to committee bloat (personally I think 13 is the
> maximum workable number). There is even resistance to accepting new
> projects due to the fear of inefficiency in the TC, and fear of dilution
> of key TC members influence. That shouldn't be what drives our decisions
> on graduating from incubation.
> We should solve that before we consider the addition of new projects,
> and before we run the next TC elections. There are a number of ways to
> address that, and some of them were expressed at a recent TC meeting:
> 1/ Keep the same setup, but refrain from adding new projects
> 2/ Keep the same setup, but only have some PTLs have guaranteed seats
> (special-case some ("inner core") projects)
> 3/ Limit the TC to 13 members, and have them all directly-elected (the
> most significant PTLs will get elected anyway)
> 4/ Limit the TC to 13 members, have them all directly-elected, *and*
> guarantee that a minimum of 8 PTLs end up in the committee
> Thoughts ? Other potential solutions ?
> Personally, I think (1) is not a solution: we shouldn't limit what is
> part of the integrated release based on fear of committee bloat or
> influence dilution. (2) doesn't sound very fair (who gets to define
> which project should be special-cased) and doesn't prevent bloat (it
> only slows it down).
> I like (3) but I agree that there is a risk in Condorcet that people
> having horizontal functions will get overrepresented, and we'd end up
> with less PTLs (vertical functions) than we'd like. So I think (4) is a
> good middle ground: prevents bloat, accommodates further growth in a
> relatively-fair way while ensuring we get PTLs in the final committee.

What would be the duration of an electee's appointment? While option 3
sounds "about right", we likely want to avoid possible electoral tsunamis.


> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130115/7d15daa5/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list