With PTL election season coming up soon, this seems like a good time to revisit the plans for the Placement effort to become a separate project with its own governance. We last discussed this back at the Denver PTG in September 2018, and settled on making Placement governance dependent on a number of items. [0] Most of the items in that list have been either completed, are very close to completion, or, in the case of the upgrade, is no longer expected. But in the time since that last discussion, much has changed. Placement is now a separate git repo, and is deployed and run independently of Nova. The integrated gate in CI is using the extracted Placement repo, and not Nova’s version. In a hangout last week [1], we agreed to several things: * Placement code would remain in the Nova repo for the Stein release to allow for an easier transition for deployments tools that were not prepared for this change * The Placement code in the Nova tree will remain frozen; all new Placement work will be in the Placement repo. * The Placement API is now unfrozen. Nova, however, will not develop code in Stein that will rely on any newer Placement microversion than the current 1.30. * The Placement code in the Nova repo will be deleted in the Train release. Given the change of context, now may be a good time to change to a separate governance. The concerns on the Nova side have been largely addressed, and switching governance now would allow us to participate in the next PTL election cycle. We’d like to get input from anyone else in the OpenStack community who feels that a governance change would impact them, so please reply in this thread if you have concerns. [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/134541.htm... [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002451.... -- Ed Leafe
Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> writes:
With PTL election season coming up soon, this seems like a good time to revisit the plans for the Placement effort to become a separate project with its own governance. We last discussed this back at the Denver PTG in September 2018, and settled on making Placement governance dependent on a number of items. [0]
Most of the items in that list have been either completed, are very close to completion, or, in the case of the upgrade, is no longer expected. But in the time since that last discussion, much has changed. Placement is now a separate git repo, and is deployed and run independently of Nova. The integrated gate in CI is using the extracted Placement repo, and not Nova’s version.
In a hangout last week [1], we agreed to several things:
* Placement code would remain in the Nova repo for the Stein release to allow for an easier transition for deployments tools that were not prepared for this change * The Placement code in the Nova tree will remain frozen; all new Placement work will be in the Placement repo. * The Placement API is now unfrozen. Nova, however, will not develop code in Stein that will rely on any newer Placement microversion than the current 1.30. * The Placement code in the Nova repo will be deleted in the Train release.
Given the change of context, now may be a good time to change to a separate governance. The concerns on the Nova side have been largely addressed, and switching governance now would allow us to participate in the next PTL election cycle. We’d like to get input from anyone else in the OpenStack community who feels that a governance change would impact them, so please reply in this thread if you have concerns.
[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/134541.htm... [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002451....
-- Ed Leafe
Have you talked to the election team about running a PTL election for the new team? I don't know what their expected cut-off date for having teams defined is, so we should make sure they're ready and then have the governance patch to set up the new team prepared ASAP because that requires a formal vote from the TC, which will take a while and we're about to enter TC elections. -- Doug
On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Have you talked to the election team about running a PTL election for the new team? I don't know what their expected cut-off date for having teams defined is, so we should make sure they're ready and then have the governance patch to set up the new team prepared ASAP because that requires a formal vote from the TC, which will take a while and we're about to enter TC elections.
We did realize that it might be cutting it close, as nominations begin on March 5. Since the governance change would not be a new issue, we did not anticipate a lengthy debate among the TC. If it turns out that it can’t be done in time, so be it, but we at least wanted to try. -- Ed Leafe
Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> writes:
On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Have you talked to the election team about running a PTL election for the new team? I don't know what their expected cut-off date for having teams defined is, so we should make sure they're ready and then have the governance patch to set up the new team prepared ASAP because that requires a formal vote from the TC, which will take a while and we're about to enter TC elections.
We did realize that it might be cutting it close, as nominations begin on March 5. Since the governance change would not be a new issue, we did not anticipate a lengthy debate among the TC.
If it turns out that it can’t be done in time, so be it, but we at least wanted to try.
-- Ed Leafe
I'm not suggesting you should wait; I just want you to be aware of the deadlines. New project teams fall under the formal vote rules described in the "Motions" section of the TC charter [1]. Those call for a minimum of 7 calendar days and 3 days after reaching the minimum number of votes for approval. Assuming no prolonged debate, you'll need 7-10 days for the change to be approved. If the team is ready to go now, I suggest you go ahead and file the governance patch so we can start collecting the necessary votes. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#motions -- Doug
On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Assuming no prolonged debate, you'll need 7-10 days for the change to be approved. If the team is ready to go now, I suggest you go ahead and file the governance patch so we can start collecting the necessary votes.
Done: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636416/ -- Ed Leafe
Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> writes:
On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Assuming no prolonged debate, you'll need 7-10 days for the change to be approved. If the team is ready to go now, I suggest you go ahead and file the governance patch so we can start collecting the necessary votes.
Done: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636416/
-- Ed Leafe
After consulting with the election officials during the most recent TC office hour [1], I have proposed shifting the PTL election deadline out 2 days to allow the TC time to approve the new team [2]. Thank you to Tony, Jeremy, and Kendall for accommodating the change. [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636510/ -- Doug
Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> writes:
Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> writes:
On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Assuming no prolonged debate, you'll need 7-10 days for the change to be approved. If the team is ready to go now, I suggest you go ahead and file the governance patch so we can start collecting the necessary votes.
Done: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636416/
-- Ed Leafe
After consulting with the election officials during the most recent TC office hour [1], I have proposed shifting the PTL election deadline out 2 days to allow the TC time to approve the new team [2]. Thank you to Tony, Jeremy, and Kendall for accommodating the change.
[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2019-... [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636510/
-- Doug
Since I've had a question or two about this, I want to clarify exactly what happened and what changed. First, two points to clarify the source of the issue: 1. The rules for voting on a governance change that would add a new team require us to give at least 7 days of consideration, regardless of the vote count, in case there are objections from the community. 2. The election officials had previously set 19 Feb as the deadline for defining the electorate for PTL elections for teams. The TC rule and election deadline combined mean that the Placement team would not have been approved in time, and so would not be able to participate in "normal" PTL elections for Train. We explored a few options: Changing the TC voting rule would have taken us at least as long as approving Placement under the current rules, at which point we'd still be past the deadline. We could create the Placement team and have them run a special election during Train, and the election officials were open to that approach. However, that's a lot of extra work for them just because of missing a deadline by 1 day for something we knew was coming, to which there is not a lot of objection, but that we let slip. So, in order to avoid creating that extra work, and to have Placement participate in the normal Train cycle PTL election process like the other teams, we've proposed moving the deadline for defining the electorate to 22 Feb. The patch change the deadline in the election repo is modifying a file that currently defines the TC election schedule, so it's a bit confusing about why that file is being changed. I'm not an expert in the tools, but from what I understand that same setting in that file is used for both elections, but only one election can be listed at a time. Since the TC election comes first, the other dates in that file are about the TC election, and the file contents will be changed when the PTL election starts. In any case, the change won't affect the TC election because the repositories moving under the new team are already part of an official team, and so contributors will already be able to participate in the TC election. The change also will not affect the dates of the PTL election process in which most people participate (nominations, voting, etc.), because the election officials have agreed to a smaller buffer between the deadline and the start of the election. So, they'll be building the election rolls in a shorter amount of time in order to allow the rest of the schedule to stay the same. Thanks again, Tony, Jeremy, and Kendall, for going the extra mile for us. Based on the current votes on the governance change to create the Placement team, we are on track to have it approved in time to meet the new deadline. Let me know if anyone has further questions about this; I'll be happy to make sure it's clear for everyone. -- Doug
On 2019-02-13 12:12:21 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...]
The patch change the deadline in the election repo is modifying a file that currently defines the TC election schedule, so it's a bit confusing about why that file is being changed. I'm not an expert in the tools, but from what I understand that same setting in that file is used for both elections, but only one election can be listed at a time. Since the TC election comes first, the other dates in that file are about the TC election, and the file contents will be changed when the PTL election starts. [...]
To clarify further the reason in this case is that, due to release and conference scheduling constraints placing the TC and PTL elections nearly adjacent, we'll be using one tag on the governance repository to identify the state of our official project list in determining the electorate rolls for both elections. -- Jeremy Stanley
participants (3)
-
Doug Hellmann
-
Ed Leafe
-
Jeremy Stanley