Open Stack

Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> [...]
> 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.

You should probably re-read what I wrote, because there is no
"enforcement" at all. There is merely the added possibility for teams to
pick someone different for release liaison work per-cycle, so that the
person preparing the next cycle is not necessarily the same person who
works on completing the release. Quoting my original email: "some teams
[...] may want to use the same super-human to handle everything [...],
and some others might use two or three humans to spread the load".

> 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.

Define "bottom". The need for a release liaison comes from the Release
Management Team, just as the need for an Oslo liaison comes from the
Oslo team. In case this is not clear, the idea of having "release
stewards" comes from the Release Management Team. Quoting my original
email: "a sort of per-cycle release liaison on steroids".

> 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.

Define "midterm". If you take into account that the work on a release
cycle starts well before the development branches are open, then it's
the current elections that happen "midterm". Whenever you choose, it's
always at the start of something and the middle of something else.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)