Open Stack

On 12/9/2019 12:41 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:13 AM Ghanshyam Mann 
> <gmann at ghanshyammann.com <mailto:gmann at ghanshyammann.com>> wrote:
>
>      ---- On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 14:02:07 -0600 Jeremy Stanley
>     <fungi at yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote ----
>      > On 2019-12-06 12:54:00 -0600 (-0600), Jay Bryant wrote:
>      > > <snip>
>      > > > The point I was making in another fork of this thread was
>     to tie the
>      > > > exact term length to the election timing and only state
>     approximate
>      > > > lengths here, ie including 'minimum' in the above will
>     still set a bound
>      > > > that complicates accommodating another slightly smaller
>     than usual
>      > > > cycle.
>      > > >
>      > > </snip>
>      > >
>      > > I am in agreement with Dean that the easiest and most flexible
>      > > solution is to tie the term lengths to the elections and not
>     state
>      > > a particular minimum or maximum.
>      > [...]
>      >
>      > Does this satisfy what's required by the bylaws though?
>      >
>      >     the term for the members of the Technical Committee shall be
>      >     approved by a majority of the Technical Committee (“Term”) and
>      >     shall be published publicly before each Technical Committee
>      >     election; if no such Term is published the Term will be twelve
>      >     calendar months.
>      >
>      > https://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/
>      >
>      > I guess it doesn't *strictly* require a term duration to be
>      > specified as an explicit measure of time, so it's possible to
>      > interpret it as allowing terms to be defined according to some
>     other
>      > criteria as long as they don't also exceed 16 months.
>
>     I agree with mapping the TC term with the election.
>
>     bylaws say:
>     " the elections for the Technical Committee shall be held in two
>     phases: the first
>      election being for at least half of the members of the Technical
>     Committee and
>     the second election being for the remaining members of Technical
>     Committee."
>
>     Because Elections dates are not explicitly mentioned (as we do not
>     know the future events final dates)
>     and are divided into two-phase. Current TC charter states 'The
>     election is held no later than 6 weeks prior to each OpenStack Summit'
>     which makes the term length etc tricky. If we can define the
>     specific week for both phases then it can be
>     consistent.
>
>
> Just throwing this idea out there (its probably already been discussed 
> at some point).. but what if we just tie it to releases instead of to 
> events since events are way more variable than releases?
>
> -Kendall (diablo_rojo)

Good point.  Given the recent changes and the fact that even schedules 
have become more variable, it may make sense to follow the release 
schedule that is remaining relatively static.


Jay


>
>
>     I feel R-4 can be fixed week:
>      - 4th weeks prior to each cycle final release date (R-4) is the
>     fixed week to conduct the election.
>      - And make PTL and TC election as a combine election always at R-4.
>
>     TC term can be documented as a "two-cycle term".
>
>      [2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html
>
>     -gmann
>
>      > --
>      > Jeremy Stanley
>      >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191209/ddca3e61/attachment-0001.html>