Open Stack

On 16-09-07 02:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info>
> Reply: Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info>
> Date: September 7, 2016 at 13:08:44
> To: Ian Cordasco <sigmavirus24 at gmail.com>, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"
>
>> On 16-09-07 01:59 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anita Kuno
>>> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Date: September 7, 2016 at 12:03:25
>>> To: 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.
> I absolutely agree. =) (I'm also one of those people who has to track and justify % of time on OpenStack so I appreciate your consideration of us, sincerely.)

Thanks Ian, I'm glad we are in agreement. I know you had to cut back on 
duties a while ago. I hope you are able to consider helping in this role 
if you are interested in doing so. i think you'd be great at it.

Thank you,
Anita.

> --
> Ian Cordasco
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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