Open Stack

Yeah. I think what I was getting at was that project leadership would be able to gather info about how they fit in the greater OpenStack via the TC, get a voice in how cross project issues could be solved, and feed back that information and prioritize cross project work on their project.

If its optional, then that might not happen properly. Delegating that authority might be a good solution as you suggest. But then delegation of prioritizing of reviews and other such things might need to go along with it at the same time to be effective? The idea is for there to be a flow of leadership from the TC to the project for some of the cross project work, but if that flow cant happen, then nothing really changed. Not so sure a delegate can have enough power to really be effective that way? Thoughts?

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Sean Mooney [smooney at redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:04 AM
To: Fox, Kevin M; Chris Dent; openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [tc] [all] Please help verify the role of the TC

On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 16:52 +0000, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Ah. Thanks for the clarification. You raise some interesting questions.
>
> Lets explore a bit. Like you, I have no idea what the right solution is. just thinking out loud.
>
> "What if the TC and PTLs were the same thing?"  One risk of making them the same is what
> I was talking about before. But what about one way association rather then both ways?
> something like "All PTL's have a seat on the TC and are required to attend meetings if
> possible"? That would allow the PTL's to have a voice in the TC, to know what's going on at
> the greater level and more easily feed back such info to the projects? It also would not
> block non ptl's from having a voice too if elected. It might be easier to make decisions that effect
> all the projects?
>
> Would something like that have the effect you were thinking?
>
> You mention that there might not be time for PTL's to do both things. Is there a scope of
> what a PTL does somewhere we could look at? Maybe some of the scope could be moved to
> a different role to enable the TC stuff? A co-PTL or something?
minor comment on this point, PTL are already playing typically 3 roles that of the PTL and that of a core reviewer
and often that of an indivigual contributor. i do like the idea of PTLs haveing a voice on the TC but
it may be asking a lot for them to take on 4th role in paralle to the 3 they already have. so rather
then mandate that a PTL must attend if they can they could be given an optional seat with the ablity to deleaget
that to another core memember. simliar to project/release liasons each project could have a TC liason that
can default to the PTL or anoter core team memeber that they nominate to take there place?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Chris Dent [cdent+os at anticdent.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 3:01 AM
> To: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: RE: [tc] [all] Please help verify the role of the TC
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>
> > Been chewing on this thread for a while.... I think I should advocate the other direction.
>
> I'm not sure where to rejoin this thread, so picking here as it
> provides a reasonable entry point. First: thanks to everyone who has
> joined in, I honestly do feel that as annoying as these discussions
> can be, they often reveal something useful.
>
> Second, things went a bit sideways from the point I was trying to
> reach. I wasn't trying to say that PTLs are the obvious and
> experienced choice for TC leadership, nor that they were best placed
> to represent the community. I hope that my own behavior over the
> past few years has made it clear that I very definitely do not feel
> that way.
>
> However, as most respondents on this thread have pointed out, both
> TC members and PTLs are described as being over-tasked. What I'm
> trying to tease out or ask is: Are they over-tasked because they are
> working on too many things (or at least trying to sort through the
> too many things); a situation that results from _no unified
> technical leadership for the community_.
>
> My initial assertion was that the TC is insufficiently involved in
> defining and performing technical leadership.
>
> Then I implied that the TC cannot do anything like actionable and
> unified technical leadership because they have little to no real
> executive power and what power they do have (for example, trying to
> make openstack-wide goals) is in conflict (because of the limits of
> time and space) with the goals that PTLs (and others) are trying to
> enact.
>
> Thus: What if the TC and PTLs were the same thing? Would it become
> more obvious that there's too much in play to make progress in a
> unified direction (on the thing called OpenStack), leading us to
> choose less to do, and choose more consistency and actionable
> leadership? And would it enable some power to execute on that
> leadership.
>
> Those are questions, not assertions.
>
> > Getting some diversity of ideas from outside of those from PTL's
> > is probably a good idea for the overall health of OpenStack. What
> > about Users that have never been PTL's? Not developers?
>
> So, to summarize: While I agree we need a diversity of ideas, I
> don't think we lack for ideas, nor have we ever. What we lack
> is a small enough set of ideas to act on them with significant
> enough progress to make a real difference. How can we make the list
> small and (to bring this back to the TC role) empower the TC to
> execute on that list?
>
> And, to be complete, should we?
>
> And, to be extra really complete, I'm not sure if we should or not,
> which is why I'm asking.
>
> --
> Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
> freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent