Open Stack

Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> Rob Cresswell wrote:
>> I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this
>> all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't
>> really need to change.
>
> Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but I see
> what you mean.
>

Maybe it does not change anything in formal wording, but it definitely  
changes dynamics in project teams. I feel like it’s better to change the  
wording than impose real life impact on developers. I was actually under  
(wrong?) impression that the split summit initiative was not supposed to  
influence how engineers do their work, but now I am quite surprized by  
where it’s leading us.

>> I've read the pros and cons, and I still can't really see a convincing
>> reason not to move the PTL election to just-before-PTG, so that the new
>> PTL is present for one development cycle as before.
>
> Here is mine: it would fail to take into account that preparation for a
> development cycle starts a few months /before/ PTG, not a just few weeks
> before.

Fine, just move the election a bit earlier, and give the new PTL to transit  
into the role naturally, having extended time to accommodate for the new  
role.

I agree the way it is done now (immediate power transition) is not ideal.  
In democracies, you usually have some time between elections and ascension  
to power. This time is taken so that the new person can learn the process,  
talk to the old PTL, close current affairs, participate in actual decisions  
for the next PTG already in the new role. I believe just holding elections  
a tad earlier (+3 weeks as of  now?) would be the best outcome.

I slightly disagree with enforcing another formal role to all teams. I feel  
that we have enough of them (release liaison for one) to cover for release  
cross-project work, and projects are free to set their teams with more  
roles if needed.

I somewhat disagree with attempt to document a single project team  
hierarchy and impose, top to bottom, same roles on everyone irrespective to  
project needs. I understand the need of some ‘liaison’ roles where project  
decisions influence other projects, but I feel that now we get into  
over-formalizing internal project structure. New roles in a team should be  
generally driven by actual needs, from the bottom.

I very much disagree with the idea of switching PTL in midterm. I believe  
in some cases this proposal will add unnecessary rivalry in lives of  
projects.

Ihar