Open Stack

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:47 -0700, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Eric Windisch <eric at cloudscaling.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The scope of common is expanding. I believe it is time to seriously
>>> consider a proper PTL. Preferably, before the PTL elections.
>>
>> +1
> 
> So, I guess I've been doing this unofficially. I'm happy for that to be
> "official" until the next round elections.

The only difference between a regular team lead and a "PTL" is the
assignment of one seat on the Technical Committee. So the question is
not whether openstack-common should have a formal lead, the question is
whether the openstack-common lead should have an assigned seat on the
future Technical Committee ("TC").

As you may know, I was advocating for a lean, directly-elected committee
of 9 members, with no reserved seats. The current PPB (responsible for
bootstrapping the TC) preferred another option: (elected) PTLs + 5
directly-elected members. My main opposition to that latter model was
that it was difficult to separate between projects "worth an automatic
seat" and projects "not worth an automatic seat", and that it would
ultimately result in a bloated board as we continue to add new projects.
With the all-directly-elected model we wouldn't even be having this
discussion.

That said, I certainly think openstack-common is "worth" an automatic
seat, and that with 13 members we'd not yet cross a critical bloat
threshold. And Mark (or whoever else would get elected to common PTL)
would certainly get elected in a direct election anyway. So I support
that move, and will prepare a resolution to adjust the TC charter to
accommodate this change and propose it at the next PPB meeting.

I just think that at some point in a not-so-distant future we'll have to
reconsider the PTLs+5 setup to support further project growth while
keeping the TC dedicated and efficient.

Regards,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack