Open Stack

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Chuck Thier <cthier at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with both John and Anne on this issue.  I think it is very
> unfortunate that this issue was only brought up so late in the process
> as to rush what is likely a sub-optimal solution through.  I would
> prefer that the TC endure the "pain" of two extra memebers and use
> that "pain" to push forward a real solution to the problem over the
> next 6 months.
>
> In an ideal world, it would be nice to trust that everyone will do the
> "right" thing and that the "best" people possible will be elected to
> the TC that will adequately represent each project.  The reality is
> that with the proposed option, only members of the largest project(s)
> will get elected, and the view of the TC will continue to narrow
> around the needs of one world view.  What the TC needs more, is a
> diverse set of opinions and views, and I believe the option proposed
> by Anne would provide a much better framework to support that.
>

As a contributor on a small project, I share this concern. I'm not sure
about the specific categories that Anne proposed, but I feel like we should
have *something* in place to ensure that we have diverse and cross-project
representation -- something more concrete than expecting the votes to just
work out that way.

Doug


>
> I implore that the TC vote to not change the TC membership and take
> the charge to fix it for real in the next term.
>
> --
> Chuck
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:02 AM, John Dickinson <me at not.mn> wrote:
> > I agree, but my other email was log enough anyway...
> >
> > --John
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org> wrote:
> >
> > I thought of one more concern I have here.
> >
> > The role of PTL is backbreaking work for large projects. Wouldn't someone
> > (or their manager) be motivated to focus on TC campaigns and influence
> > rather than day-to-day PTL work with this narrowing scope of seats?
> >
> > Seems we'd demotivate the behavior we need, day-to-day hands-on work by
> > technical leaders. We still need consensus-builders as well, but the
> point
> > of the TC is not to separate those roles (technical decisions and
> get-along
> > attitudes)
> >
> > Anyone else see it that way?
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Anne Gentle wrote:
> >> > I agree with Mark that there are no PTL seats. Is it possible that a
> PTL
> >> > is going to "lose" their TC seat if they lose the PTL election at the
> >> > six-month mark and the seats are for a year?
> >> > (Thinking of the defined "renew half the committee every 6 months (and
> >> > be elected for a one-year term)" from a previous thread.)
> >>
> >> With the new system, the fact that you are or not a PTL doesn't affect
> >> your TC term length. A person that is elected for one year is elected
> >> for one year, even if they also are a PTL (elected for 6 months) and
> >> even if they lose that PTL position after 6 months.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thierry
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130124/63d675ec/attachment.html>