Open Stack

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 08:56:06AM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 17/09/15 16:00 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >Excerpts from Morgan Fainberg's message of 2015-09-17 12:51:33 -0700:
> >
> >>I think this is all superfluous however and we should simply encourage
> >>people to not wait until the last minute. Waiting to see who is
> >>running/what the field looks like isn't as important as standing up and
> >>saying you're interested in running.
> >
> >+1
> 
> Just want to +1 this. I'm going to be, probably, extrem here and
> sugest that we should just shrink the candidacy period to 1 (max 2)
> days.

-1 - the "problem" here (if you want to call it that) is that some folks
evidently found a week nomination period insufficient, for $whatever reason.

The obvious solution to that is to simply adopt the same branch model for
the openstack/election repo as all other projects - create a branch (or
directory) per release in openstack/election, and allow candidates to
propose their candidacy at any time during the preceding release cycle.

Then, if you clearly state the deadline ahead of time, you simply publish
results and/or start elections on that date, with whatever is in the repo
on that date and folks have the whole cycle (say from summit to RC1 time)
to consider running and propose their candidacy whenever they want.

I also think this would encourage discussion within the project teams about
who wants to run for PTL, with transparency about those interested/willing
ahead of time.

Perhaps you might WIP all submissions until a few days before the deadline,
such that if communities decide via mutual agreement one candidate should
take their turn as PTL submissions may be abandoned without any election.

IMHO rotation of PTL responsibilities is healthy, as is discussion
and openness in the community - being PTL isn't some sort of prize, it's a
time-consuming burden, which is mostly about coordination and release
management, not really about "leadership" at all (although it is about
community building and leading by example..)

I guess what I mean is I'm not really sure what the timeboxed nomination
period aims to achieve, particularly if you shrink it to one or two days -
that makes it extremely easy for folks to miss due to illness/travel or
$whatever, and implies some kind of race - which is the opposite, IMHO of
the dynamic we should be encouraging.

Steve