Open Stack

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:55:30AM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> 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.

Ok, apologies, it wasn't my intention to mis-quote you, but I interpreted
your comments as meaning "candidacy period" meant proposals for candidacy
could *only* be made during that time, e.g your remarks about designating
someone to submit a review on a particular 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 think we're basically in agreement and arguing for the same thing - folks
should be able to look at the release schedule, and see, just like the
clearly communicated "feature freeze" date, a PTL candidacy freeze.

> >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.

Sure, but the dynamic implied by voting in private, an election, and
proposing candidacy at the last minute is one of competition for the role.

That, IMHO, is not all that healthy in this context, and most communities
should already be making all sorts of decisions by consensus, discussion
and mutual agreement.

Nothing I'm prosing defeats the purpose of the existing system - if more
than one candidate is keen to volunteer, they just do so, and the election
happens just as it does now.

> >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.

Cool, that wasn't really how I interpreted your previous mail, sounds like
we're in violent agreement! :)

Cheers,

Steve