Open Stack

On 11/9/2015 10:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> A few cycles ago we set up the Release Cycle Management team which was a
> bit of a frankenteam of the things I happened to be leading: release
> management, stable branch maintenance and vulnerability management.
> While you could argue that there was some overlap between those
> functions (as in, "all these things need to be released") logic was not
> the primary reason they were put together.
>
> When the Security Team was created, the VMT was spinned out of the
> Release Cycle Management team and joined there. Now I think we should
> spin out stable branch maintenance as well:
>
> * A good chunk of the stable team work used to be stable point release
> management, but as of stable/liberty this is now done by the release
> management team and triggered by the project-specific stable maintenance
> teams, so there is no more overlap in tooling used there
>
> * Following the kilo reform, the stable team is now focused on defining
> and enforcing a common stable branch policy[1], rather than approving
> every patch. Being more visible and having more dedicated members can
> only help in that very specific mission
>
> * The release team is now headed by Doug Hellmann, who is focused on
> release management and does not have the history I had with stable
> branch policy. So it might be the right moment to refocus release
> management solely on release management and get the stable team its own
> leadership
>
> * Empowering that team to make its own decisions, giving it more
> visibility and recognition will hopefully lead to more resources being
> dedicated to it
>
> * If the team expands, it could finally own stable branch health and
> gate fixing. If that ends up all falling under the same roof, that team
> could make decisions on support timeframes as well, since it will be the
> primary resource to make that work

Isn't this kind of already what the stable maint team does? Well, that 
and some QA people like mtreinish and sdague.

>
> So.. good idea ? bad idea ? What do current stable-maint-core[2] members
> think of that ? Who thinks they could step up to lead that team ?
>
> [1] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/530,members
>

With the decentralizing of the stable branch stuff in Liberty [1] it 
seems like there would be less use for a PTL for stable branch 
maintenance - the cats are now herding themselves, right? Or at least 
that's the plan as far as I understood it. And the existing stable 
branch wizards are more or less around for help and answering questions.

[1] 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/078281.html

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann