[openstack-dev] Motion on Technical Committee membership for Spring 2013 session
doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Fri Jan 25 20:58:22 UTC 2013
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, John Dickinson <me at not.mn> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> > current situation (we keep a 8PTL+5 committee).
> > It was my preferred option, but consensus seemed to be (at that point)
> > that the added complexity in election setup was not compensated by clear
> > benefits. But further discussion proved that diversity is a concern, so
> > I'm happy to propose that option instead. I really would prefer general
> > consensus on that change.
> > Anne, John, Doug, Chuck: Would that be agreeable to you ? If not, why
> not ?
> > As I said earlier, I was worried that without any checks and balances
> important groups within the community (smaller projects, non-code
> contributors, users, etc.) would not have sufficient representation. Based
> on some offline discussions, I am more confident that the election system
> will help address these issues. Given that, and the simplicity of a
> straight election for all 13 members over trying to ensure a minimum number
> of PTLs, I think we should go ahead with the originally proposed change to
> the rules.
> > Doug
> What is the rush? If we do not change the rules right now, what happens?
> We end up with potentially 2 more members of the TC for the next six
> months. How is this an onerous burden? I suggest we continue the discussion
> without fear of a deadline and don't worry if we need to spend some extra
> time exploring different possibilities.
If we can afford to wait, that's fine. I just meant I don't have an issue
with the plan and don't feel a need to wait.
> I would like to see more discussion around categories.
Having a set of categories doesn't solve the problem of growth. As new
categories come up, we would have to add committee members to handle them.
> Another possibility is to not add new projects.
I don't think that's a realistic solution.
> Or perhaps to have a PTL committee and a user committee (a bi-cameral
> system). The point is, the first 4 suggestions have anchored the current
> discussion, and they certainly don't represent the gamut of possibilities.
> I think we need to take our time when making these types of changes to the
> governance structure.
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev