[openstack-dev] Motion on Technical Committee membership for Spring 2013 session

Anne Gentle anne at openstack.org
Thu Jan 24 15:49:34 UTC 2013

I thought of one more concern I have here.

The role of PTL is backbreaking work for large projects. Wouldn't someone
(or their manager) be motivated to focus on TC campaigns and influence
rather than day-to-day PTL work with this narrowing scope of seats?

Seems we'd demotivate the behavior we need, day-to-day hands-on work by
technical leaders. We still need consensus-builders as well, but the point
of the TC is not to separate those roles (technical decisions and get-along

Anyone else see it that way?


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:

> Anne Gentle wrote:
> > I agree with Mark that there are no PTL seats. Is it possible that a PTL
> > is going to "lose" their TC seat if they lose the PTL election at the
> > six-month mark and the seats are for a year?
> > (Thinking of the defined "renew half the committee every 6 months (and
> > be elected for a one-year term)" from a previous thread.)
> With the new system, the fact that you are or not a PTL doesn't affect
> your TC term length. A person that is elected for one year is elected
> for one year, even if they also are a PTL (elected for 6 months) and
> even if they lose that PTL position after 6 months.
> --
> Thierry
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130124/9a9b9ded/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list