Open Stack

On 09/09/16 03:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> 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.

i imagine it would be ok for transition to occur during RC period where 
the PTL-elect and some subset of contributors start planning while 
others work on stability of current release. that of course would be 
based on many assumptions like having enough contributors to take away 
resource from testing and your project as a whole being ok with a subset 
of people having fun task of planning and others laboring away at fixing 
stuff. that said, these decisions probably can't be applied to all 
projects generally.

>>
>> 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?

i imagine transitions would be hidden from operators by the 
deployment/packaging/release teams? i don't know of any bad transitions 
personally.

-- 
gord