---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:43:27 -0600 Zane Bitter <zbitter@redhat.com> wrote ----
On 4/03/20 3:08 pm, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 3/4/20 12:57 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
One cannot help wondering if we might get more Nova cores willing to sign up for a 1-week commitment to be the "PTL" than we're getting for a 6-months-and-maybe-indefinitely commitment.
That's a really interesting idea. I'm not sure I'd want to go as short as one week for PTL, but shortening the term might make it easier for people to commit.
The key would be to make it short enough that you can be 100% confident the next person will take over and not leave you holding the bag forever. (Hi Rico!)
I've no idea where the magic number would fall, and it's probably different for every team. I'm reasonably confident it's somewhere between 1 week and 6 months though.
This seems a good way to distribute the PTL overload but I am thinking what if more than one would like to server as PTL for the cycle or whatever period we decide. I am not sure we will have this case in the current situation where almost all projects are without-election but still we should have some mechanism ready. Another idea I think about co-PTLship. I remember in previous or this cycle few projects want to have the co-PTL concept. Means officially have more than PTL. To solve the single point of contact issue we can have single PTL contact and other co-PTL distribute the responsibility for that cycle. -gmann