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

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Sat Jan 26 17:28:49 UTC 2013

On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:44 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> The PTL is much more influential than a TC member. The PTL has ultimate
> (and *unshared*) say on what happens over his project. He takes precise
> day-to-day technical decisions, and can do all by himself.
> Comparing that to just one vote on a committee of 13 members that
> address cross-project issues and express their opinion on a handful of
> issues every 6 months... I'm pretty sure it's clear what position ends
> up being more influential.

This is a pretty crucial point, I think.

I find it really, really sad that people could think that any project's
interests would be ignored if their PTL doesn't have a vote on the TC.

We place far too much emphasis on voting in the Technical Committee. The
TC should instead be about building cross-project consensus. Close-run
votes on any matter is not a healthy basis to proceed with anything. The
fact that TC members have the option of voting against something without
blocking it means that members can avoid the responsibility of engaging
with the rest of the TC to find a consensus position that works for

Switching to an all-elected committee would give us the opportunity to
show that the consensus building model can work. Because an all-elected
TC that doesn't work to build consensus which involves all PTLs just
will not work.

Keeping the status quo and adding more PTLs will mean more PTLs fearful
of their project being ignored by an all-elected TC - i.e. I'm skeptical
we'll ever be brave enough to give all-elected a shot if we decide not
to now.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list