[openstack-dev] [all][barbican][freezer][horizon][karbor][keystone][mistral][nova][pack-deb][refstack][solum][storlets][swift][tacker][telemetry][watcher][zaqar] Last days for PTL candidate announcements
flavio at redhat.com
Fri Aug 11 07:37:08 UTC 2017
On 10/08/17 14:04 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
>On 2017-08-07 03:50 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
>>Hello Everyone :)
>>A quick reminder that we are in the last days for PTL candidate
>>If you want to stand for PTL, don't delay, follow the instructions at 
>>to make sure the community knows your intentions.
>>Make sure your candidacy has been submitted to the openstack/election
>>repository and approved by election officials.
>>This means that with approximately 2.5 days left more than 27% of projects
>>will be deemed leaderless. In this case the TC will be bound by .
>I thought that the language in this sentence, that the TC is bound by
>the referenced resolution was a bit of mis-stating the relationship,
>but I thought I would let it pass and that things would work
>themselves out. However having read the language in Emmett's post to
>the TC reporting which programs don't have a self-nominated PTL, I'm
>motivated to clarify.
>The TC is not bound. The TC has agreed to follow a process. The
>election officials are bound, in as much as they are obliged to
>communicate the list of leaderless programs to the TC without delay.
>The TC is enabled by the process, not bound by it.
>The TC CAN appoint a leader, they are not obliged to appoint a leader.
>The TC may do other things as well, it depends on the circumstances.
>Also to clarify, the election officials serve the TC, not the other
I would like to clarify this sentence, though. I do not think the election
officials serve the TC, neither the TC serves the election officials. Both
bodies serve the community and the processes defined by it.
The fact the TC oversees the community does not mean the latter (or any group in
it) serves the TC. if anything, I'd prefer to think the TC serves the community
and the groups the conform it.
That said, I think we could argue for a long time on the terms and words used to
communicate the various relationships. While I believe words are extremely
important, I also believe they are a bit less important if the message goes through.
In this case the message is that there are cases of leaderless teams this time
around and there's a process we can, should, and will follow.
Thanks for the clarifications, Anita. Thanks for the hard work on the elections,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev