Open Stack

/me takes a deep breath

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> Chuck Thier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I wish you had commented on the options earlier in the original thread,

Let me remind you that I (among others) brought this concern up a the
original TC meeting.  This is also when I proposed the idea of
dividing the PTL representation up among groups.  There was initial
support for this idea from TC members including John, Anne, and Monty,
and yet you completely ignored it.  Trying to stay out of the
politics, but was happy to see Anne make her proposal to the list, to
which you quickly dismissed.  I hadn't posted more to the list until
it looked like the decision was leaning more to what I would consider
to be one of the worst options, at which point I decided to assert my
opinion again.

> but that's a fair point. Diversity is a valid concern.
>
> That's what option (4) was addressing: limit the committee growth while
> still ensuring representation from various projects.
>
> Let me repeat what that option was:
>
> "Limit the TC to 13 members, have them all directly-elected, *and*
> guarantee that a minimum of 8 PTLs end up in the committee"
>
> It looks like this would address your concern: ensuring a minimum of
> diversity is present in the resulting committee, while proactively
> addressing the growth issue before it becomes a factor in
> accepting/rejecting new projects. It's also the smallest change from

The idea that we must act now to prevent a growth issue before it
becomes a factor in accepting/rejecting new projects is a straw man.
I have little doubt that (without some other major issue) the current
two projects in incubation will become core projects.  I totally agree
that the overall problem needs to be addressed, but the main point
that I was trying to make was that this should be done over the next
cycle, rather than making a rushed change that could be even more
detrimental.  If going from 13 to 15 TC members causes too much pain,
then let that be the catalyst to change for the better.

> the
> current situation (we keep a 8PTL+5 committee).
>
> It was my preferred option, but consensus seemed to be (at that point)
> that the added complexity in election setup was not compensated by clear
> benefits. But further discussion proved that diversity is a concern, so
> I'm happy to propose that option instead. I really would prefer general
> consensus on that change.
>

I rather dislike that we have to "choose between the lesser evils" (an
opinion that was shared among other TC members as well).

--
Chuck