Open Stack

Anne Gentle wrote:
> Rochelle.RochelleGrober wrote:
>>    /flame-on
>>     Let's call spades, spades here.  Czar is not only overkill, but the
>>     wrong metaphor.
>>     /flame-off
> 
> I'm with Rocky on the anti-czar-as-a-word camp. We all like clever names
> to shed the "corporate" stigma but this word ain't it. Liaison or lead?

Sure! I certainly didn't want to offend anyone with my choice of terms.
Google lists two meanings for the word:

1. an emperor of Russia before 1917 ("Tsar Nicholas II")
2. a person appointed by government to advise on and coordinate policy
in a particular area ("the former British drugs czar")

I was referring to the latter meaning (like the US presidency has had
"cybersecurity czars" in the past), but I'm fine with using "liaison"
instead -- it's just slightly more boring.

> Also wanted to point to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTLguide as it's
> quite nice.
> 
> I think PTLs tend to find help when they absolutely are ready to fall
> over, and I'm all for a plan that helps us not fall over. I've had
> people step up for bug triaging, gate work, tests, and oslo, sometimes
> one person did three or four at once. I certainly can't do it all for
> cross-project. Based on what I've seen, I doubt that we can add this
> much formality to this across 20+ programs. It's the "bigger more
> integrated project" vs. "smaller more focused project" difference that
> won't let us do a pattern here. We can certainly document the
> responsibilities and let programs know there are some best practices.

In smaller programs, I would expect the PTL to keep filling most, if not
all, of those roles. As long as the PTL is not overworked, the roles are
well-known and everyone knows who to contact, it works.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)