Open Stack

I agree with all that u guys are saying and I think that the current PTL's
have done a great job and I know that there is a lot to take under
consideration when submitting a potential PTL candidacy and that its all
about delegating, integrating, publicizing.

I don't think any of that is in question.

I am just more concerned about the 'diversity' issue, which looking at
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Elections_Fall_2013#Candidates is imho
lacking (1 person elections aren't really elections). Now of course this
may not be an immediate problem, but it does not seem to be the ideal
situation a community would be in; I just imagine a community that has a
multi-person elections (those multi-people don't need to be at each others
throats, or even competitors, or any of that) and which thrives off the
diversity of those different people.

It just seems like something we can work on as a community, to ensure that
there is diversity.

-Josh

On 9/25/13 4:31 AM, "Flavio Percoco" <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

>On 25/09/13 11:29 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>Joshua Harlow wrote:
>>> +2
>>>
>>> I think we need to as a community figure out why this is the case and
>>> figure out ways to make it not the case.
>>>
>>> Is it education around what a PTL is? Is it lack of time? Is it
>>>something
>>> else?
>>
>>In my view the PTL handles three roles: final decider on
>>program-specific issues, release management liaison (for programs
>>containing an integrated project) and program ambassador (natural point
>>of contact). Note that the last two roles can be delegated.
>>
>>If you don't delegate anything then it's a lot of work, especially for
>>programs with large integrated projects -- so if the current PTL does a
>>great job and runs for election again, I suspect everyone else doesn't
>>feel the urge to run against him.
>>
>>FWIW I don't think established PTLs mind being challenged at all. If
>>anything, in the past this served to identify people interested in
>>project management that could help in the PTL role and serve in a
>>succession strategy. So you shouldn't fear to piss of the established
>>PTL by challenging them :)
>>
>
>I agree with Thierry here.
>
>The PTL role takes time and dedication which is the first thing people
>must be aware of before submitting their candidacy. I'm very happy
>with the job current PTLs have done, although I certainly don't have a
>360 view. This should also be taken under consideration, before
>submitting a PTL candidacy, I expect people to ask themselves - and
>then share with others - what their plan is for the next development
>cycle, how they can improve the project they want to run for, etc.
>
>IMHO, the fact that there hasn't been many candidacies means that
>folks are happy with the work current PTLs have done and would love to
>have them around for another release cycle. However, this doesn't mean
>that folks that have submitted their candidacy are not happy with the
>current PTL and I'm very happy to see other folks willing to run for
>the PTL possition.
>
>I also think that PTLs have integrated the community at large in their
>PTL role and this has definitely helped folks to participate in the
>decision process. I've never thought about PTLs as final deciders but
>as the ones responsible for leading the team towards a decision that
>reflects the best interest of the project.
>
>That being said, I wouldn't worry that much for not seeing so many
>candidacies. I think this fits into the "Lazy Consensus" concept.
>
>Cheers,
>FF
>
>-- 
>@flaper87
>Flavio Percoco
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev