Open Stack

Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> writes:

>> >> * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure council" (to be renamed) which
>> >>   will govern the services that the team provides by vote.  The council
>> >>   will consist of the PTL of the winterscale infrastructure team and one
>> >>   member from each official OpenStack Foundation project.  Currently, as
>> >>   I understand it, there's only one: OpenStack.  But we expect kata,
>> >>   zuul, and others to be declared official in the not too distant
>> >>   future.  The winterscale representative (the PTL) will have
>> >>   tiebreaking and veto power over council decisions.
>> >
>> > That structure seems sound, although it means the council is going
>> > to be rather small (at least in the near term).  What sorts of
>> > decisions do you anticipate needing to be addressed by this council?
>> 
>> Yes, very small.  Perhaps we need an interim structure until it gets
>> larger?  Or perhaps just discipline and agreement that the two people on
>> it will consult with the necessary constituencies and represent them
>> well?
>
> I don't want to make too much out of it, but it does feel a bit odd
> to have a 2 person body where 1 person has the final decision power. :-)
>
> Having 2 people per official team (including winterscale) would
> give us more depth of coverage overall (allowing for quorum when
> someone is on vacation, for example).  In the short term, it also
> has the benefit of having twice as many people involved.

That's a good idea, and we can scale it down later if needed.

>> I expect the council not to have to vote very often.  Perhaps only on
>> substantial changes to services (bringing a new offering online,
>> retiring a disused offering, establishing parameters of a service).  As
>> an example, the recent thread on "terms of service" would be a good
>> topic for the council to settle.
>
> OK, so not on every change but on the significant ones that might affect
> more than one project. Ideally any sort of conflict would be worked out
> in advance, but it's good to have the process in place to resolve
> problems before they come up.

Yes, and like most things, I think the biggest value will be in having
the forum to propose changes, discuss them, and collect feedback from
all members of participating projects (not just voting members).
Hopefully in most decisions, the votes are just a formality which
confirms the consensus (but if there isn't consensus, we still need to
be able to make a decision).

-Jim