Open Stack

On 9/9/2016 6:49 AM, Thierry Carrez 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.
>
>> 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.

Do we really expect the next cycle PTL to be planning for the next cycle 
midway through the current cycle? That seems pretty extreme to me, when 
we're still crunching to the 3rd milestone and trying to wrap things up 
for feature freeze, which will determine a lot of what spills over into 
the next cycle.

I think having a PTL switchover in the middle of a release and then 
having them start bugging everyone about planning for the next cycle 
would be really distracting.

>
> Talking with operators at the recent Ops midcycle, they were pretty
> enthusiastic with the idea of having someone take responsibility for a
> release cycle from day 0 (when you start collecting priorities) through
> the development cycle, to release, up to early stable branch backports
> and communication about the work that has been accomplished. The best
> way to achieve that is to have that person designated in the middle of
> the previous cycle, not just a few weeks before the development branches
> open.
>

Are there specific bad acting projects that operators are having a 
problem with? Like, are there just terrible transitions happening 
somewhere in the community that the rest of us don't know about and it's 
impacting release-to-release development of major projects?

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann