Open Stack

Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 22/08/14 08:33, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> We also
>> still need someone to have the final say in case of deadlocked issues.
> 
> -1 we really don't.

I know we disagree on that :)

>> People say we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack for which the
>> PTL ultimate power is needed, so we could get rid of them. I'd argue
>> that the main reason we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack is
>> precisely *because* we have a system to break them if they arise.
> 
> s/that many/any/ IME and I think that threatening to break a deadlock by
> fiat is just as bad as actually doing it. And by 'bad' I mean
> community-poisoningly, trust-destroyingly bad.

I guess I've been active in too many dysfunctional free and open source
software projects -- I put a very high value on the ability to make a
final decision. Not being able to make a decision is about as
community-poisoning, and also results in inability to make any
significant change or decision.

>> That
>> encourages everyone to find a lazy consensus. That part of the PTL job
>> works. Let's fix the part that doesn't work (scaling/burnout).
> 
> Let's allow projects to decide for themselves what works. Not every
> project is the same.

The net effect of not having a PTL having the final call means the final
call would reside at the Technical Committee level. I don't feel like
the Technical Committee should have final say on a project-specific
matter. It's way better that the local leader, chosen by all the
contributors of THAT project every 6 months, makes that final decision.
Or do you also want to get rid of the Technical Committee ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)