[all][tc] Moving PTL role to "Maintainers"

Ghanshyam Mann gmann at ghanshyammann.com
Thu Mar 5 00:53:55 UTC 2020

 ---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:43:27 -0600 Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote ----
 > On 4/03/20 3:08 pm, Ben Nemec wrote:
 > > 
 > > 
 > > On 3/4/20 12:57 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
 > >> One cannot help wondering if we might get more Nova cores willing to 
 > >> sign up for a 1-week commitment to be the "PTL" than we're getting for 
 > >> a 6-months-and-maybe-indefinitely commitment.
 > > 
 > > That's a really interesting idea. I'm not sure I'd want to go as short 
 > > as one week for PTL, but shortening the term might make it easier for 
 > > people to commit.
 > The key would be to make it short enough that you can be 100% confident 
 > the next person will take over and not leave you holding the bag 
 > forever. (Hi Rico!)
 > I've no idea where the magic number would fall, and it's probably 
 > different for every team. I'm reasonably confident it's somewhere 
 > between 1 week and 6 months though.

This seems a good way to distribute the PTL overload but I am thinking
what if more than one would like to server as PTL for the cycle or whatever
period we decide. I am not sure we will have this case in the current situation
where almost all projects are without-election but still we should have some
mechanism ready. 

Another idea I think about co-PTLship. I remember in previous or this
cycle few projects want to have the co-PTL concept. Means officially have
more than PTL. To solve the single point of contact issue we can have
single PTL contact and other co-PTL distribute the responsibility for that cycle.



More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list