Open Stack

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:33:27PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We all know being a project PTL is an extremely busy job. That's because
>> in our structure the PTL is responsible for almost everything in a project:
>>
>> - Release management contact
>> - Work prioritization
>> - Keeping bugs under control
>> - Communicate about work being planned or done
>> - Make sure the gate is not broken
>> - Team logistics (run meetings, organize sprints)
>> - ...
> 
> This is a good list of responsbilities, but I feel like we're missing
> something that is possibly a little too fuzzy to describe a bullet
> point. In terms of our governance process, PTL is an elected role, so
> in that sense the PTL holds an implicit duty to represent the interests
> of the project constituents. I'd characterise this as setting the overall
> big picture direction, so that the core team (and/or czars) are focusing
> their efforts in the right directioon and generally ensuring that the
> project is operating in a healthy manner. Perhaps you could class that
> as 'team logistics' but I feel that the idea of 'representation the
> voters' is is worth calling out explicitly.

Indeed. I touch on the "keep an eye on the big picture" aspect of the
job later in the email, but I didn't call it out in that list.

> Is there any formal writeup of the PTL role's responsibilities ?
> With Google so far I only found one paragraph of governance
> 
>   https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/Structure
> 
>   "Project Technical Leads (PTLs) lead individual projects. A PTL
>    is ultimately responsible for the direction for each project,
>    makes tough calls when needed, organizes the work and teams in
>    the project and determines if other forms of project leadership
>    are needed. The PTL for a project is elected by the body of
>    contributors to that particular project."

The reference would be:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTLguide

> Anyway, with the idea of elections & representation in mind....
> 
>> Enter the Czar system: each project should have a number of liaisons /
>> official contacts / delegates that are fully responsible to cover one
>> aspect of the project. We need to have Bugs czars, which are responsible
>> for getting bugs under control. We need to have Oslo czars, which serve
>> as liaisons for the Oslo program but also as active project-local oslo
>> advocates. We need Security czars, which the VMT can go to to progress
>> quickly on plugging vulnerabilities. We need release management czars,
>> to handle the communication and process with that painful OpenStack
>> release manager. We need Gate czars to serve as first-line-of-contact
>> getting gate issues fixed... You get the idea.
>>
>> Some people can be czars of multiple areas. PTLs can retain some czar
>> activity if they wish. Czars can collaborate with their equivalents in
>> other projects to share best practices. We just need a clear list of
>> areas/duties and make sure each project has a name assigned to each.
>>
>> Now, why czars ? Why not rely on informal activity ? Well, for that
>> system to work we'll need a lot of people to step up and sign up for
>> more responsibility. Making them "czars" makes sure that effort is
>> recognized and gives them something back. Also if we don't formally
>> designate people, we can't really delegate and the PTL will still be
>> directly held responsible. The Release management czar should be able to
>> sign off release SHAs without asking the PTL. The czars and the PTL
>> should collectively be the new "project drivers".
>>
>> At that point, why not also get rid of the PTL ? And replace him with a
>> team of czars ? If the czar system is successful, the PTL should be
>> freed from the day-to-day operational duties and will be able to focus
>> on the project health again. We still need someone to keep an eye on the
>> project-wide picture and coordinate the work of the czars. We need
>> someone to pick czars, in the event multiple candidates sign up. We also
>> still need someone to have the final say in case of deadlocked issues.
> 
> .... I'm wondering how people come to be czars ? You don't say explicitly,
> but reading this it feels like the team of czars would be more or less
> self-selecting amongst the project contributors or nominated by the PTL ?

I think you would have volunteers (and volunteered) people. In the
unlikely case people fight to become the czar, I guess the PTL could
have final say, as it's also good to ensure that all czars don't happen
to come up from a single company, etc.

> Thus if we took the next step and got rid of the PTL, then we seem to
> have entirely removed the idea of democratically elected leadership from
> the individual projects. Is this interpretation correct, wrt the idea of
> a czar system with PTL role abolished ?

If you also abolish the PTL, yes.

>> People say we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack for which the
>> PTL ultimate power is needed, so we could get rid of them. I'd argue
>> that the main reason we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack is
>> precisely *because* we have a system to break them if they arise. That
>> encourages everyone to find a lazy consensus. That part of the PTL job
>> works. Let's fix the part that doesn't work (scaling/burnout).
> 
> Even if we didn't have deadlocks with a pure czar system, I fear that
> we would be loosing something important by no longer having the project
> members directly elect their leader. The elections serve to give the
> membership a sense of representation & control over the direction of
> the project. Without that you have the risk that a self-selected group
> of people become defacto controllers of the project, with no formal
> system in place to depose them out if they were to stop acting in
> interests of the rest of the contributors.
> 
> I hope that would never become a real problem for OpenStack, but I
> would still feel uncomfortable about changing governance based on
> such an assumption. IOW, even if a PTL were to delegate all their
> responsibility such that they're merely a figurehead in terms of the
> day-to-day functioning of the project, I think it is desirable that
> they remain there as a role that is elected & ultimately responsible.

++

> Overall though, I think the idea of the PTL delegating work out to a
> team of czars, who are explicitly considered to be working on his/her
> behalf, has merit, especially for the larger projects like Nova. It
> clearly isn't in our interests long term for our PTLs to get burnt
> out by the workload they take on, as that will discourage otherwise
> good people from stepping forward for PTL roles. It is mostly the
> questions about representation / goverance that I'm interested in
> more clarity on.

Floating the idea is the first step. If it sticks, I'll make sure the
governance aspects are fleshed out.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)