Open Stack

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 22/08/14 11:19, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Zane Bitter wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/08/14 08:33, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>
>>>> We also
>>>> still need someone to have the final say in case of deadlocked issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -1 we really don't.
>>>
>>
>> I know we disagree on that :)
>>
>
> No problem, you and I work in different programs so we can both get our
> way ;)
>
>
>  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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> s/that many/any/ IME and I think that threatening to break a deadlock by
>>> fiat is just as bad as actually doing it. And by 'bad' I mean
>>> community-poisoningly, trust-destroyingly bad.
>>>
>>
>> I guess I've been active in too many dysfunctional free and open source
>> software projects -- I put a very high value on the ability to make a
>> final decision. Not being able to make a decision is about as
>> community-poisoning, and also results in inability to make any
>> significant change or decision.
>>
>
> I'm all for getting a final decision, but a 'final' decision that has been
> imposed from outside rather than internalised by the participants is...
> rarely final.
>

The expectation of a PTL isn't to stomp around and make "final" decisions,
it's to step in when necessary and help both sides find the best solution.
To moderate.


>
> I have yet to see a deadlock in Heat that wasn't resolved by better
> communication.


Moderation == bettering communication. I'm under the impression that you
and Thierry are agreeing here, just from opposite ends of the same spectrum.


>
>
>  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).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's allow projects to decide for themselves what works. Not every
>>> project is the same.
>>>
>>
>> The net effect of not having a PTL having the final call means the final
>> call would reside at the Technical Committee level. I don't feel like
>> the Technical Committee should have final say on a project-specific
>> matter. It's way better that the local leader, chosen by all the
>> contributors of THAT project every 6 months, makes that final decision.
>> Or do you also want to get rid of the Technical Committee ?
>>
>
> Haha, I don't want to get rid of the TC, but I agree that having them
> stepping in to resolve technical disputes by fiat within projects is
> strictly worse than having the PTL do it. I think the TC's role is to offer
> guidance in the first instance, and if necessary say to a project "if you
> can't find a way to productively work together like adults, we're going to
> kick you out of OpenStack". I don't expect the latter power to ever be
> needed.
>
> cheers,
> Zane.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140822/448d72f8/attachment.html>