Open Stack

On 9/9/16 11:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>> One interesting side-effect is that since the timing of the election
>> period (for PTL and TC positions) is defined in the TC charter[3]
>> relative to the *Summit*, it means that (unless we change this) we'll
>> now run elections to renew PTL and TC positions in the middle of the
>> cycle. Crazy, right ? That's what I first thought. But after discussing
>> it with various people, this is not as crazy as it sounds.
>> [...]
> Oh. Wait. *Some* of the wording in the charter actually mentions "design
> summit" -- since that's dissolved into two events, we kind of need to to
> alter the wording there anyway. There is no status quo.
>
> So we'll have to discuss whether it's better to define our next PTL/TC
> elections relative to the PTG (happening Feb 20-24, 2017) or to the
> Summit (happening May 8-12, 2017), or to something completely different
> (like the release date).
>
> I still think it's simpler to run relative to Summit (so that the PTLs
> running for election in the coming days will have a normal 6-month
> term), but the other solution would work too.
>
> Personally I care about having a point person to handle a release cycle
> from the preparation stages (months before the PTG) to the post-release
> stage (months after release). I don't care as much about exactly when
> the name of the person holding the PTL title (may) change... since there


"""
> is no perfect timing for that, you're always in the middle of something.
>
"""

"no perfect timing..." this can go in as thought of the day and I will
acknowledge +1000 to it.

-- 

Thanks,
Nikhil