[openstack-dev] Motion on Technical Committee membership for Spring 2013 session
me at not.mn
Thu Jan 24 16:02:43 UTC 2013
I agree, but my other email was log enough anyway...
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org> wrote:
> 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 attitudes)
> 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.
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev