Open Stack

Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I'm also not very concerned about delayed authority of the PTL. Peaceful
> handoff should be a pretty basic tenant in projects. Knowing about it
> for a longer time shouldn't be a big deal. If it causes giant strife to
> pass the torch from one PTL to the next there is something else going
> wrong in that project. In the few cases I'm familiar with in which a
> standing PTL lost an election, the relationship between that PTL and the
> PTL-next was fine.
> 
> Again, these are personal experiences from the projects I'm actively
> involved with, or collaborate with the most.

I think that we are in alignment in 98% of what's proposed here.
Elections would still be run in the weeks prior to the summit. I'm
saying that there should be release stewards and by default it would be
the PTL. You are saying there should be PTLs with release duties, but
they can still delegate that. That's nearly the same thing.

The two differences are:
- defining "release stewards" as a thing slightly encourages PTLs to
delegate the role.
- the transfer of the ultimate tie-breaking/veto authority of the PTL
happens at election time in my case (as defined in the TC charter),
while you suggest it happens 3 months later, when development on N+1 starts.

One thing to note is that unless someone proposes a TC charter change
during Ocata, the authority of the newly-elected PTL starts at election
time, since the charter only recognizes one PTL at a time.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)