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

Rob Cresswell robert.cresswell at outlook.com
Fri Sep 9 11:15:05 UTC 2016


I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't really need to change.

I've read the pros and cons, and I still can't really see a convincing reason not to move the PTL election to just-before-PTG, so that the new PTL is present for one development cycle as before. If the bigger projects want to have "release stewards" (which again, seems to be a fancy term for "current PTL" and "stable PTL") then they should be able to do that with the current model anyway. I think this preferable because it prevents any disconnect from either A) an election mid way through development and B) and election that isn't actually in effect until 3 months later.

I think the PTG/Forum change is already generating some confusion amongst management and organisations that are outside of core upstream development (as in, not 100% upstream work), and I think trying to shake up project organisation is just going to make things more confusing. I don't imagine I'm the only person reading through this thread and just wondering "why?".

I absolutely agree that encouraging people to take leadership roles and responsibility within their community is a great thing, but I don't think this really achieves it. That's down to the projects to change their culture, rather than just adding new roles and hoping for the best :)

Rob

On 9 September 2016 at 10:00, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org<mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I'm also not very concerned about delayed authority of the PTL. Peaceful
> handoff should be a pretty basic tenant in projects. Knowing about it
> for a longer time shouldn't be a big deal. If it causes giant strife to
> pass the torch from one PTL to the next there is something else going
> wrong in that project. In the few cases I'm familiar with in which a
> standing PTL lost an election, the relationship between that PTL and the
> PTL-next was fine.
>
> Again, these are personal experiences from the projects I'm actively
> involved with, or collaborate with the most.

I think that we are in alignment in 98% of what's proposed here.
Elections would still be run in the weeks prior to the summit. I'm
saying that there should be release stewards and by default it would be
the PTL. You are saying there should be PTLs with release duties, but
they can still delegate that. That's nearly the same thing.

The two differences are:
- defining "release stewards" as a thing slightly encourages PTLs to
delegate the role.
- the transfer of the ultimate tie-breaking/veto authority of the PTL
happens at election time in my case (as defined in the TC charter),
while you suggest it happens 3 months later, when development on N+1 starts.

One thing to note is that unless someone proposes a TC charter change
during Ocata, the authority of the newly-elected PTL starts at election
time, since the charter only recognizes one PTL at a time.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160909/2a8fd9c0/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list