Open Stack

Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 08:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> It feels like complexity here is the enemy of transparency. 

It's true that simplicity and perennity could be added as goals to score
our models against. Personally I still prefer the 11-directly-elected
model, but I can see how Monty's model can be more consensual due to a
guarantee of minimal variety... so it's now my new alternate option.

>> Is Monty a
>> CI, TripleO, or oslo rep? It gets complicated quickly. Does mikal run as
>> oslo vs. nova? And does he pick in advance because his chances are
>> better in one than the other?
> 
> That's why I submitted a code version. I actually don't think it's that
> complex if we do a single election without people pre-declaring. The
> categories are for PTL representation - not project representation. So
> far we have never had a person who is PTL of two projects (eek) I would
> be a CI rep. In the case of "co-PTL's" it's really about looking at each
> candidate in the results list one in turn, seeing if they are the PTL
> (or co-PTL) for any of the categories still un-represented, and if not
> putting them in the at-large pool.

We could also ask a PTL who gets elected in two different
projects/programs to choose which one he wants to lead and let the
person ranked 2nd in the PTL election help with the other. PTL can be a
daunting task and spreading the load can't hurt.

> The only weird corner case is if a
> category has no PTL's run at all, and that's the one where I was
> suggesting that we then fill that category with the top voted core
> member of any of that category's projects.

I think it's fine if a category has no PTL's run at all. If nobody in
that category is interested in TC matters, it's perfectly fine. Just
reassign that category seat to the at-large pool.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack