[openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

Thierry Carrez thierry at openstack.org
Thu Sep 8 09:00:11 UTC 2016


Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 12:27 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Barrett, Carol L wrote:
>>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:sean at dague.net] 
>>>> I think another option would be to run the PTL election early, but just don't have the turn over happen until the master release opens up. The current transition period is > > > 
>>>> actually quite short as noted by the comments around how design summit planning happens. Having the PTL-next elected half way through the cycle, but having PTL current > 
>>>> still > own landing the current release actually provides a lot more transition time.
>>>>
>>>> 	-Sean
>>>
>>> I had a similar thought to Sean's, with a few changes. Why not have a PTL own the release from start to finish, with the PTL for the next release getting elected as above. In this model, it would probably be advisable (or a guideline) that a PTL not run for 2 cycles in a row, because the work load would be unmanageable. This approach could help to grow a stronger leadership pipeline for each project and provide more opportunities for people in the team to grow their skills and take on leadership.
>>
>> The drawback of this approach is that it breaks the governance model
>> around project teams. You need a "the buck stops here" person (even if
>> that power is seldom used). But you can't have two -- what happens if
>> they disagree ?
>>
>> So it's simpler to have a single PTL at all times and one or two release
>> liaisons at all times. Could be the same person though.
> 
> It doesn't give you 2 PTLs. It gives you PTL-next that gets to make
> decisions on master once it opens up, and guides it until it's a stable
> branch. It doesn't seem like it breaks anything to me.

So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the
PTL to be the release steward (rather than having a choice there), and
introduce a delay between election and start of authority for the PTL.

I don't see that delay as a good thing. You would elect in April a PTL
whose authority over the project would start in August. That sounds a
bit weird to me. I'd rather say that the authority of the PTL starts
when he is elected, and not introduce a delay.

I don't see *forcing* the PTL to be the release steward to be a good
thing either. The just-elected PTL can totally be the release steward
for the upcoming cycle -- actually, that is how my proposal would work
by default: the PTL elected around Boston would be the default release
steward for Q, and the PTL elected around Sydney would be the default
release steward for R. But I'd rather allow for some flexibility here,
in case the PTL prefers to delegate more of his work. I also think
allowing for more leadership roles (rather than piling it all on the
PTL) helps growing a stronger leadership pipeline.

In summary, I see drawbacks to your variant, and I fail to see any
benefits... Am I missing something ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list