Divya K Konoor wrote:
Missing the deadline for a PTL nomination cannot be the reason for removing governance.
I agree with that, but missing the deadline twice in a row is certainly a sign of some disconnect with the rest of the OpenStack community. Project teams require a minimal amount of reactivity and presence, so it is fair to question whether PowerVMStackers should continue as a project team in the future.
PowerVMStackers continue to be an active project and would want to be continued to be governed under OpenStack. For PTL, an eligible candidate can still be appointed .
There is another option, to stay under OpenStack governance but without the constraints of a full project team: PowerVMStackers could be made an OpenStack SIG.
I already proposed that 6 months ago (last time there was no PTL nominee for the team), on the grounds that interest in PowerVM was clearly a special interest, and a SIG might be a better way to regroup people interested in supporting PowerVM in OpenStack.
The objection back then was that PowerVMStackers maintained a number of PowerVM-related code, plugins and drivers that should ideally be adopted by their consuming project teams (nova, neutron, ceilometer), and that making it a SIG would endanger that adoption process.
I still think it makes sense to consider PowerVMStackers as a Special Interest Group. As long as the PowerVM-related code is not adopted by the consuming projects, it is arguably a special interest, and not a completely-integrated part of OpenStack components.
The only difference in being a SIG (compared to being a project team) would be to reduce the amount of mandatory tasks (like designating a PTL every 6 months). You would still be able to own repositories, get room at OpenStack events, vote on TC election...
It would seem to be the best solution in your case.