[openstack-dev] [tc][election][ec2-api][winstackers][stable] status of teams without PTL candidates

Alexandre Levine alexandrelevine at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 16:03:10 UTC 2016


Let me clarify a bit the situation.
Before this February there wasn't such a project at all. EC2 API was a 
built-in part of nova so no dedicated PTL was required. The built-in 
part got removed and our project got promoted. We're a team of 3 
developers which nevertheless are committed to this support for year and 
a half already. The reason I didn't nominate myself is solely because 
I'm new to the process and I thought that first cycle will actually 
start from Mitaka so I didn't have to bother. I hope it's forgivable and 
our ongoing support of the code to make sure it works with both 
OpenStack and Amazon will make up for it if a little.

Best regards,
   Alex Levine

On 3/21/16 3:09 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> I won't be able to make the TC meeting this week because of travel,
>>> so I wanted to lay out my thoughts on the three PTL-less projects
>>> based on the outcome of the recent election (EC2-API, Winstackers,
>>> and Stable Maintenance).
>>> [...]
>> First of all, I think we need to recognize that with more than 50 project teams, it's pretty likely there will always be people missing the nomination boat for one reason or another. Small and understaffed projects just make it even more likely, as the pool of candidates there is so small. I actually find it easier to excuse EC2API and Winstackers handful of contributors for missing it in Mitaka, than to excuse Magnum and its hundred of contributors for missing it in Liberty.
> Forgiveness is fine, but our governance process is one of the few explicit things we list as required of official teams, and I think we should consider it a strong requirement for remaining actively listed no matter the size or age of the team.
>>> The EC2-API project doesn't appear to be very actively worked on.
>>> There is one very recent commit from an Oslo team member, another
>>> couple from a few days before, and then the next one is almost a
>>> month old. Given the lack of activity, if no team member has
>>> volunteered to be PTL I think we should remove the project from the
>>> official list for lack of interest.
>> The EC2API project is a bit of a corner case: something we want to exist as an official project but which is critically understaffed. Missing the PTL nomination boat is more a sign of this understaffing than anything else. I suspect we still very much want this to exist, so I'm not convinced we should take this opportunity to remove the project.
>> If anything, I hope this situation that may remind the various stakeholders depending on that functionality to be present and maintained that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Open source software is not magic ponies giving you free-as-in-beer software. You need the people who depend on the feature to support (directly or indirectly) its maintenance.
> No matter how much we need the project, failing to demonstrate that the team is actually involved is a bad sign. It sounds like there was a recent change in leadership that made it unclear of the need to formally declare a candidacy, so maybe we just need to work on making that more clear.
>>> The Winstackers project is much more active in the repository, but
>>> there doesn't seem to be much traffic on the mailing list. It's not
>>> clear why no one signed up to be PTL, and I couldn't find a notice
>>> that the current PTL is not running. I'm tempted to suggest removing
>>> Winstackers from the official project list for lack of participation
>>> in project governance, but perhaps a probation period is in order
>>> since it's a relatively new team. Probation would depend on having
>>> the team find a PTL volunteer, of course.
>> I suspect this one is more of a classic "didn't pay attention" case. Since I don't think we need Winstackers as an official project as much as we need EC2API, we should definitely have a discussion about whether it's still worth keeping as an official project or if it would be as good to just make it an unofficial project.
>>> The situation with the Stable Maintenance team is ironically shaky.
>>> The outgoing PTL has entered the Nova PTL election, though he has
>>> said he would take up the Stable team work again if he does not
>>> become Nova PTL. That election will not be over until 24 March, so
>>> I think we should wait before taking any action. If Matt becomes
>>> Nova PTL, and no other volunteer steps forward, I will take on the
>>> responsibilities, though I do want to keep the Stable team separate
>>> from the Release team. That said, I would very much prefer to have
>>> someone else be the Stable team PTL so I hope we can find a volunteer.
>> The situation with stable maintenance is a bit of a corner case too. Matt would have stayed PTL for stable if he wasn't elected for Nova, and Tony, being an election official, couldn't really throw his name in the PTL election hat at the last minute. I think this is a case where the TC looking at the potential names and making their choice will be working as intended
> I agree with Sean that we should clarify the situation with having election officials participate as PTL.
> Doug
>> -- 
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list