[openstack-dev] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu at redhat.com
Tue Mar 15 15:55:07 UTC 2016

On 03/15/2016 01:45 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/11/2016 12:45 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2016-03-10 22:05:00 +0000 (+0000), Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
>>> Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
>>> contributions we can collect from git repos listed as project
>>> deliverables. For these projects, how can the election officials
>>> validate PTL candidacy and what would be the electorate roll in case of
>>> an election ?
>> The electorate rolls for project-teams without any
>> deliverables/repos end up being limited to the "extra-atc" entries
>> for them. For example, the I18N team has done an excellent job of
>> providing a curated list of active translators, rendered at:
>> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs
>> I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
>> probably also don't need a PTL?
>> Packaging-Deb is the only one I see in an especially strange state
>> at the moment: it has one existing repo (the rest are phantoms which
>> were never created) with two Gerrit changes, both owned by the
>> team's sole code contributor (based on our traditional process of
>> enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
>> new de facto PTL-ship!
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools
>> Obviously, we'll need the TC to step in on unusual corner cases with
>> inactive/newly-minted teams, such as this one.
> Hi there!
> First, I'm surprised that nobody got in touch with me directly about
> this first, before this thread happens. But never mind, I'll explain
> what happened here.
> tl;dr:
> The project can still be considered at the same state as it was 6 months
> ago. Ie: it's not started yet on OpenStack infra, but alive and working
> outside of it. The reason is simple: we still don't have a Debian image
> to work with within OpenStack infra, and even less the necessary tooling
> to build packages. I hope this will change in Newton, so please leave
> the project as it is.

Thomas, if the TC and Monty agrees to give "Packaging Deb" project
another cycle to bootstrap, then what you proposed sounds fair and we
should keep the project as it is.

Note that we need an explicit approval since the current state basically
prevent the next PTL to be elected by the community.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160315/febe8aad/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list