Open Stack

To give a survey on the numbers of the valid commit contributors

We got

61 in Austin :)
...
1204 contributors in havana [1]
...
2629 in liberty
2991 in mitaka
3104 in newton (which is peek point) [2]
2581 in ocata
2452 in pike
1925 in queens
1665 in rocky
1612 in stein [3]

I believe the numbers of contributors should reflect on the numbers of TCs.
If we try to compare the ratio (like stein cycle vs past six released
cycles), I think to reduce to 9 (from 13) is acceptable numbers (also
should be more than 7).

And for even number issue, I believe to have 1 cycle of even number TCs
will not affect much. But if we can, odd number definitely helps to reduce
conflict when we end up using a poll to resolved some issues (one TC can
propose solutions but it takes all TCs can to resolve the conflict.).

[1]
https://www.stackalytics.com/?release=havana&project_type=all&metric=commits
[2]
https://www.stackalytics.com/?release=newton&project_type=all&metric=commits
[3]
https://www.stackalytics.com/?release=stein&project_type=all&metric=commits

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:17 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The size of the TC is a trade-off between getting enough community
> representation and keeping enough members engaged and active. The
> current size (13 members) was defined by in 2013, as we moved from 5
> directly-elected seats + all PTLs (which would have been 14 people) to a
> model that could better cope with our explosive growth. Since then, 13
> has worked well, to ensure that new blood could come in at every cycle.
>
> I would argue that today, there are far less need to get wide
> representation in the TC (we are pretty aligned), and less difficulty to
> enter the TC (there is more turnover). In 2019 OpenStack, 13 members is
> a rather large group. It is becoming difficult to find 13 people able to
> commit to a significant amount of time over the coming year. And it is
> difficult to keep all those 13 members active and engaged.
>
> IMHO it is time to reduce the TC to 11 members, which sounds like a more
> reasonable and manageable size. We should encourage people to stop for a
> while and come back, rather than burn too many people at the same time.
> We should encourage more people to watch from the sidelines, rather than
> have a group so large that everyone that can be in it is in it.
>
> This would not be a big-bang change, just something we would gradually
> put in place over the next year. My strawman plan would be as follows:
>
> - Sept. 2019 election: no change, elect 6 seats as planned
> - Feb. 2020 election: elect 6 seats instead of 7
> - Sept. 2020 election: elect 5 seats instead of 6
> - Then elect 6 seats at every start-of-year and 5 at every end-of-year
>
> That would result in TC membership sizes:
>
> - U cycle (Q4 2019/Q1 2020): 13 members
> - V cycle (Q2/Q3 2020): 12 members
> - W cycle (Q4 2020/Q1 2021): 11 members
> - after that: 11 members
>
> FWIW, I intend to not run for reelection in the Feb 2020 election, so
> nobody else has to sacrifice their seat to that reform for that election :)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>

-- 
May The Force of OpenStack Be With You,

*Rico Lin*irc: ricolin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190828/e3642cf6/attachment.html>