Open Stack

On 16-09-07 01:59 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info>
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: September 7, 2016 at 12:03:25
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"
>
>> On 16-09-07 12:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>> Now, the main drawback of holding elections in the middle of a
>>>>>> development cycle is that you don't want to introduce a discontinuity in
>>>>>> leadership in that development cycle. To mitigate that, we propose the
>>>>>> introduction of a new role, the "release steward", which would be
>>>>>> attached to the release cycle. That person (who may or may not double as
>>>>>> PTL) would be responsible for a complete release cycle on a given
>>>>>> project team, from requirements gathering phase to post-release
>>>>>> bugfix-backport phase. A sort of per-cycle release liaison on steroids.
>>>>> I think this is a great idea. Having a person be on point for a
>>>>> particular release from inception to whenever we stop caring about it
>>>>> makes a lot of sense.
>>>> I agree. Regardless of how PTL elections end up working, I think we should definitely
>> move forward with this "Release Stewards" concept. It sounds like an excellent idea.
>>> Also since "Release Stewards" are nominated by PTL, projects can just
>>> start using this concept right away (as it's not an elected position).
>>> +1 from me.
>>>
>>>> One question, should "Release Stewards" also be members of the Stable Team for that
>> project or will they become members of the Stable Team? It seems like there should be a
>> relationship there to me (although maybe not a strictly enforced one).
>>   
>> Welcomed and required are two different things. I think the stable team
>> is always willing to work with new contributors. I additionally think
>> that floating the expectation that someone able to take on the release
>> steward position also is required to entertain the stable team
>> responsibilities might shy away good candidates for the release steward
>> position. I think working with the single concept of release steward
>> first is a good place to begin. Give it space to grow both as a concept
>> within OpenStack and within individual projects.
> I absolutely agree that this could scare off potentially good candidates. I also did a very poor job explaining why I think this is related, I'm sorry.
>
> In my mind, if I were a Release Steward for a project. I would think I'd not only be in charge of helping the initial release but also managing "post-release bugfix-backport phase". That to me is what a PTL does with the Stable Team, so at least I would need to coordinate with the Stable Team. It at least seems implied. Now whether the person be an existing member of the Stable Team, doesn't seem important. But if the person is Release Steward, I'd expect them to be able to help approve changes to the branch/release they're stewarding. That, implies to me, that they'll need to work within the Stable Team. Given that train of thought, it makes sense to me that a Release Steward who is not already a Stable Team member would have to become one to continue their stewardship and would be trusted to (maybe only at first) approve changes for their release and not for all stable branches.
>
> Does that help to explain my reasoning for bringing that up?

Yes it does, thanks for taking the time to expand. What you say makes 
perfect sense from the perspective of the contributors.

I'm taking a look at the perspective of a manager, who may or may not 
know what our actual workflow is and how we operate. There are a number 
of folks who unfortunately have to quantify their time working on 
OpenStack in terms of percentage of a week or month. For anyone in that 
position, and to the managers who care enough to read this list (thank 
you by the way) I want to help those in this position to be able to get 
permission to do the work if that is their wish. If we keep the time 
required to a percentage their manager will approve then we open the 
door wider. Hence my recognition of the difference between welcomed and 
required. If we keep the required bit to the smallest workable piece 
more managers will allow their charges to do the work or at the very 
least, not block them.

Thanks,
Anita.

>
> I don't want to scare folks off at all, but I think we should maybe chat a bit about this.
> --
> Ian Cordasco
>