Open Stack

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Dean Troyer <dtroyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:02 AM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>> With my (soon to be former, at least for a cycle) TC member hat on,
>> I suggest that we hold this election as planned but circulate the
>> suggestion of electing fewer seats in coming cycles. Then once the
>> new TC has been confirmed let them decide whether that should be the
>> plan as soon into the new term as possible, and announce that
>> decision so the community will be prepared for it in the next
>> election.
> 
> I completely agree with this, it is usually around election time
> (often just after) that we think about these things but making a
> change for the impending election is too quick.  I like Thierry's
> suggested schedule and I like the target of 9.  I do not have a strong
> preference for getting to 9 in 2 vs 4 cycles (2 at a time vs 1 at a
> time).  As has been mentioned elsewhere (IRC?) having an even number
> should not be an issue, looking back I can recall only one vote where
> it might have been a problem and in that case since it was clear we
> did not have consensus the plan was dropped anyway.  FWIW, StarlingX
> had an even number of members on its Technical Steering Committee (TC
> equivalent) for two cycles and it has not been a problem for basically
> the same reason, when driving for even close consensus you generally
> do not get ties.

Yes, I think it’s too close to the current election to change this now.
Other than that, the only reason to take longer would be to ensure that
we maintain a balance in the number of seats up for election each
cycle.

Doug