Open Stack

John Griffith wrote:
> This option is fine with me and I think it's a pretty good model that
> addresses concerns on both sides of the debate.  Also seems to give the
> best cross-section of interests IMO.

I spent a bit of time tonight trying to codify option (4) for the
Charter and found a number of corner cases that make this option
actually very complex. In particular when PTLs elected for one-year end
up losing their seats after 6 months. We'd have to elect everyone every
6 months, which would create a bit of undesired instability.

With option (3) potentially creating diversity issues, as raised by Anne
and Chuck, I don't think we actually have at this point a perfect
system. Furthermore, on important issues like this, I would like to have
consensus win, rather than push a divisive vote at the TC and hope that
2/3 of the membership approves it against the last third. The strong
opposition voiced by John clearly shows there is no consensus yet on
this on the TC.

So I think the benefits of waiting now outweigh the drawbacks of keeping
the same system for 6 more months, and therefore I'll withdraw this
proposal from the agenda of our next meeting.

I'm fine with someone else picking it up and proposing it. Otherwise
that means we'll keep the current system for the next TC 6-month
session. We can all think about solutions in the next months. I'll hold
a session at the Design Summit in Portland about this, where I hope
interested parties can gather and brainstorm a solution that would work
for everyone, hopefully we'll find one.

Cheers, and have a good weekend :)

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