[openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Ian Cordasco sigmavirus24 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 7 18:19:52 UTC 2016


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info>
Reply: Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info>
Date: September 7, 2016 at 13:08:44
To: Ian Cordasco <sigmavirus24 at gmail.com>, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

> On 16-09-07 01:59 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anita Kuno  
> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)  
> > Date: September 7, 2016 at 12:03:25
> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org  
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"  
> >
> >> On 16-09-07 12:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>>>> Now, the main drawback of holding elections in the middle of a
> >>>>>> development cycle is that you don't want to introduce a discontinuity in
> >>>>>> leadership in that development cycle. To mitigate that, we propose the
> >>>>>> introduction of a new role, the "release steward", which would be
> >>>>>> attached to the release cycle. That person (who may or may not double as
> >>>>>> PTL) would be responsible for a complete release cycle on a given
> >>>>>> project team, from requirements gathering phase to post-release
> >>>>>> bugfix-backport phase. A sort of per-cycle release liaison on steroids.
> >>>>> I think this is a great idea. Having a person be on point for a
> >>>>> particular release from inception to whenever we stop caring about it
> >>>>> makes a lot of sense.
> >>>> I agree. Regardless of how PTL elections end up working, I think we should definitely  
> >> move forward with this "Release Stewards" concept. It sounds like an excellent idea.  
> >>> Also since "Release Stewards" are nominated by PTL, projects can just
> >>> start using this concept right away (as it's not an elected position).
> >>> +1 from me.
> >>>
> >>>> One question, should "Release Stewards" also be members of the Stable Team for that  
> >> project or will they become members of the Stable Team? It seems like there should be  
> a
> >> relationship there to me (although maybe not a strictly enforced one).
> >>
> >> Welcomed and required are two different things. I think the stable team
> >> is always willing to work with new contributors. I additionally think
> >> that floating the expectation that someone able to take on the release
> >> steward position also is required to entertain the stable team
> >> responsibilities might shy away good candidates for the release steward
> >> position. I think working with the single concept of release steward
> >> first is a good place to begin. Give it space to grow both as a concept
> >> within OpenStack and within individual projects.
> > I absolutely agree that this could scare off potentially good candidates. I also did  
> a very poor job explaining why I think this is related, I'm sorry.
> >
> > In my mind, if I were a Release Steward for a project. I would think I'd not only be in charge  
> of helping the initial release but also managing "post-release bugfix-backport phase".  
> That to me is what a PTL does with the Stable Team, so at least I would need to coordinate  
> with the Stable Team. It at least seems implied. Now whether the person be an existing  
> member of the Stable Team, doesn't seem important. But if the person is Release Steward,  
> I'd expect them to be able to help approve changes to the branch/release they're stewarding.  
> That, implies to me, that they'll need to work within the Stable Team. Given that train  
> of thought, it makes sense to me that a Release Steward who is not already a Stable Team  
> member would have to become one to continue their stewardship and would be trusted to  
> (maybe only at first) approve changes for their release and not for all stable branches.  
> >
> > Does that help to explain my reasoning for bringing that up?
>  
> Yes it does, thanks for taking the time to expand. What you say makes
> perfect sense from the perspective of the contributors.
>  
> I'm taking a look at the perspective of a manager, who may or may not
> know what our actual workflow is and how we operate. There are a number
> of folks who unfortunately have to quantify their time working on
> OpenStack in terms of percentage of a week or month. For anyone in that
> position, and to the managers who care enough to read this list (thank
> you by the way) I want to help those in this position to be able to get
> permission to do the work if that is their wish. If we keep the time
> required to a percentage their manager will approve then we open the
> door wider. Hence my recognition of the difference between welcomed and
> required. If we keep the required bit to the smallest workable piece
> more managers will allow their charges to do the work or at the very
> least, not block them.

I absolutely agree. =) (I'm also one of those people who has to track and justify % of time on OpenStack so I appreciate your consideration of us, sincerely.)
--  
Ian Cordasco




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list