[all][tc] Moving PTL role to "Maintainers"
jean-philippe at evrard.me
Tue Mar 3 15:44:58 UTC 2020
> Off hand, I feel like my initial mental response was "Noooo!". Upon
> thinking of this and talking to Mohammed some, I think it is a
> necessary evolutionary step. As a burned out PTL who cares, I wonder
> "who will step up after me" and carry what I perceive as the
> organizational and co-ordination overhead, standing on stage, and
> running meetings. Nothing prevents any contributor from running a
> community meeting, standing on a stage and giving a talk or project
> update! We are a community, and single points of contact just lead
> community members to burnout.
> Possibly what we are lacking is a "Time for a meeting!" bot.
I am not sure to understand what you are proposing.
Wasn't the liaison's system meant for avoiding burnout by delegating
tasks, while staying clear on duties? It avoids the back and forth of
communication to some maintainer, solving the question "who is handling
that?". It still allows delegation. IMO, there was never a limitation
of the amount of liaisons for a single "kind" of liaison. You could
have 2 ppl working on the releases, 2 on the bugs, etc.
Don't get me wrong: on the "drop of the PTL" story, I was more in the
"we should drop this" clan. When I discussed it last time with Mohammed
(and others, but it was loooooong ago), I didn't focus on the liaisons.
But before side-tracking this thread, I would like to understand what
are the pain points in the current model (explicitly! examples!), and
how moving away from PTLs and liaisons will help the team of
maintainers. At first sight, it looks like team duties will be vague.
There are various levels of success on self-organizing teams.
More information about the openstack-discuss