Open Stack

 ---- On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:21:45 -0600 Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote ----
 > On 25/02/20 9:29 pm, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > >   ---- On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:39:36 -0600 Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote ----
 > >   > On 25/02/20 5:23 am, Thierry Carrez wrote:
 > >   > > 1- No bylaws change
 > >   > > As bylaws changes take a lot of time and energy, the simplest approach
 > >   > > would be to merge the TC and UC without changing the bylaws at all. The
 > >   > > single body (called TC) would incorporate the AUC criteria by adding all
 > >   > > AUC members as extra-ATC. It would tackle all aspects of our community.
 > >   > > To respect the letter of the bylaws, the TC would formally designate 5
 > >   > > of its members to be the 'UC' and those would select a 'UC chair'. But
 > >   > > all tasks would be handled together.
 > >   >
 > >   > I think there's an even simpler approach. Any member of the foundation
 > >   > can nominate themselves as a UC member. In the past we've just kept
 > >   > extending the deadline until someone steps up. So the *simplest* thing
 > >   > to do is:
 > >   >
 > >   > * Run the election process as usual. If any users want to step up they
 > >   > are welcome to, and on past performance very likely to be acclaimed
 > >   > without an election.
 > >   > * If the deadline passes, the TC commits to finding enough warm bodies
 > >   > who are foundation members to fill any remaining seats, including from
 > >   > among its own members if necessary.
 > > 
 > > TC or BoDs ?
 > 
 > The TC, but there's no formal role here. TC members just commit amongst 
 > themselves to doing whatever it takes to make sure the requisite number 
 > of volunteers appear, up to and including volunteering themselves if 
 > necessary.
 > 
 > > If TC then we still need Bylaw change to remove the number
 > > of UC and mention, TC owns to make UC team even with one or more members.
 > > Because the number of 5 UC in Bylaw is something that has to be fixed.
 > 
 > No, what I'm saying is that the TC will ensure the UC always has exactly 
 > 5 members so the bylaws can remain unchanged.
 > 
 > > But again the main question is how TC will find the members as nobody even from TC
 > > are not running for UC.
 > 
 > Easy, like this:
 > 
 > Dear <insert name here>,
 > Congratulations, you just volunteered to be a UC member! But don't 
 > worry, because there are no duties other than showing up for roll call 
 > twice a year.

:) 'no duties'.  Then it makes sense to update the Bylaw to remove UC reference
from it and have single governance as TC.

Because keeping a team with no duties is negative impression and I will say
either we have team working on its mission/duties as a separate team or merged
into TC with relevant duties or if those duties are ok not to be done then it
is clear that nobody depends on those duties or someone else is doing it
indirectly so closing the team is the right approach.

-gmann

 > 
 > love,
 > the TC
 > 
 > > 
 > > -gmann
 > > 
 > >   > * The additional volunteers are acclaimed, and all members of the UC
 > >   > elect a chair.
 > >   > * We accept that to the extent that the UC has duties to perform and
 > >   > ambassadors to help, this will largely remain un-done.
 > >   >
 > >   > This eliminates the issue of actual users needing to submit themselves
 > >   > to an election of all ATCs + AUCs in order to get a seat (which tbh
 > >   > seems questionable under the bylaws, since not all ATCs are AUCs).
 > >   >
 > >   > - ZB
 > >   >
 > >   >
 > >   >
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 >