Open Stack

Anne Gentle wrote:
>>     3/ Limit the TC to 13 members, and have them all directly-elected (the
>>     most significant PTLs will get elected anyway)
>> 
>>     4/ Limit the TC to 13 members, have them all directly-elected, *and*
>>     guarantee that a minimum of 8 PTLs end up in the committee
>> 
>>     Thoughts ? Other potential solutions ?
> 
> Is the number 8 significant now due to the number of projects we have?
> Why not an odd number, 7 or 9, to encourage consensus-building towards a
> majority?

Those are definitely possible variations. I proposed 8 for option (4) to
keep the same ratio we currently have.

> More thinking on another potential solution. PTLs are project technical
> leads. We could add a lot of projects in the next two years and want to
> be sure they're represented. So, turning "project" around a bit, is
> there another role, such as a representative Technical Lead for multiple
> projects to go under some day? I'm thinking this way due to previous
> requests around establishing a "common libraries" coordinator, an API
> coordinator, etc. Here are some categories:
> 
> Storage
> Computing
> Networking
> Monitoring
> Operating
> Packaging
> Continuous Integration and Builds
> Doc
> QA
> Integration Testing
> API
> UI/CLI (Dashboard/clients)

I understand the idea of ensuring some variety, I'm not convinced it's a
practical solution. It's easy to have PTL elections because you use one
contributor to the project = one vote. it's easy to have TC direct
elections because you use one contributor to any project (over which the
TC has control) = one vote.

For some of your categories that could work the same ("Networking"), but
for some others... How would you elect the "Operating" or the
"Packaging" representative ? Why give "QA" and "Integration testing" two
separate seats ? Why not one ? Why not three ?

Basically I think it's way simpler to have a general direct election of
13 seats (or less) and elect sane people that care about Doc, QA, API,
operating or packaging, rather than have each specific area represented
by a specific person (and force that person to wear the "Doc hat" in TC
discussions). I don't really want an assembly of people each
representing a particular group interest. I want a group of people all
caring about openstack as a whole and trust them in making the right
decisions for openstack.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee