Open Stack

On 18/09/15 09:17 +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
>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.

This is the same thing I said in my previous email (you cut that off
of your reply) with the only difference that you're suggesting not
having a "candidacy day" but rather just have a "start election" day.

I'd argue saying that a deadline for candidacies is useful to have and
it brings more formality to the process. It helps, in the case of
using `openstack/elections` to have a deadline for cutting the branch
or freezing reviews, etc.

Setting up the election takes some time, which means there has to be a
date where the election officers stop considering new candidacies.

>
>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.

+1

>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.

I guess this may work in some cases but this defeats the whole purpose
of having an election and being able to vote, in private, which many
people value.

>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.

In my previous email I mentioned that folks can simply send the
candidacy in advance or have someone else to propose it. Seriously,
it's not about having a single day for sending the candidacy, it's
about having a clear deadline where no more candidacies are
considered. If a candidacy is sent 4 months in advance, I guess that's
fine. I don't care.

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150918/6d8c7499/attachment.pgp>