Open Stack

 ---- On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 22:34:41 +0900 Mohammed Naser <mnaser at vexxhost.com> wrote ----
 > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:04 AM Balázs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer at est.tech> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:20 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
 > >
 > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > >
 > > With Ussuri Cycle PTL election completed, we left with Placement project as leaderless[1]. In today TC meeting[2], we discussed the few possibilities and decided to reach out to the eligible candidates to serve the PTL position.
 > >
 > > Thanks for being concerned about this, but it would have been useful if you included me (as the current PTL) and the rest of the Placement team in the discussion or at least confirmed plans with me before starting this seek-volunteers process. There are a few open questions we are still trying to resolve before we should jump to any decisions: * We are currently waiting to see if Tetsuro is available (he's been away for a few days). If he is, he'll be great, but we don't know yet if he can or wants to. * We've started, informally, discussing the option of pioneering the option of leaderless projects within Placement (we pioneer many other things there, may as well add that to the list) but without more discussion from the whole team (which can't happen because we don't have quorum of the actively involved people) and the TC it's premature. Leaderless would essentially mean consensually designating release liaisons and similar roles but no specific PTL. I think this is easily possible in a small in number, focused, and small feature-queue [1] group like Placement but would much harder in one of the larger groups like Nova. * We have several reluctant people who _can_ do it, but don't want to. Once we've explored the other ideas here and any others we can come up with, we can dredge one of those people up as a stand-in PTL, keeping the slot open. Because of [1] there's not much on the agenda for U.
 > >
 > >
 > > I guess I'm one of the reluctant people. I think technically I can do it but I don't want to commit to work when I don't see that I will have enough time to do it well. For me this is all about priorities and the amount of work I'm already commited to at the moment. Still I'm open to get tasks delegated to me, like doing the project update in Sanghai.
 > 
 > If it's okay with you, would you like to share what are some of the
 > priorities and work that you feel is placed on a PTL which makes you
 > reluctant?
 > 
 > PS, by no means I am trying to push for you to be PTL if you're not
 > currently interested, but I want to hear some of the community
 > thoughts about this (and feel free to reply privately)

This is really important point.  I can agree about PTL responsibility for big
and very high traffic of work (review + feature request + discussions etc) are
more time consuming but for other projects it should not be so bad. 

My personal experience as QA PTL (where you have lot of responsibility during
release time, stable branches for devstack and other QA tools, stable testing job etc) is
really good and does not consume my mush time (when I separated my PTL time and QA 
core developer time). 

Listing the items, responsibility which making PTL job very hard will be great way
to improve it. 

-gmann

 > 
 > > Cheers,
 > > gibi
 > >
 > > Since the Placement team is not planning to have an active presence at the PTG, nor planning to have much of a pre-PTG (as no one has stepped up with any feature ideas) we have some days or even weeks before it matters who the next PTL (if any) is, so if possible, let's not rush this. [1] It's been a design goal of mine from the start that Placement would quickly reach a position of stability and maturity that I liked to call "being done". By the end of Train we are expecting to be feature complete for any features that have been actively discussed in the recent past [2]. The main tasks in U will be responding to bug fixes and requests-for-explanations for the features that already exist (because people asked for them) but are not being used yet and getting the osc-placement client caught up. [2] The biggest thing that has been discussed as a "maybe we should do" for which there are no immediate plans is "resource provider sharding" or "one placement, many clouds". That's a thing we imagined people might ask for, but haven't yet, so there's little point doing it.
 > > --
 > > Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/ freenode: cdent
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
 > -----------------------------------------------------
 > D. 514-316-8872
 > D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
 > E. mnaser at vexxhost.com
 > W. http://vexxhost.com
 > 
 >