Open Stack

On 04/22/2015 07:38 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:15:28PM -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
>>> Problem Statement: OpenStack is growing, the election tools we use for
>>> gathering nominations and communicating status of nominations, the
>>> current workflow can be found on this wikipage:
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Election_Officiating_Guidelines is
>>> unable to be accessed by election officials and the electorate in a
>>> clear way. The process we use for actually conducting the polls is fine.
>>> We need to discuss and agree on a new workflow for posting
>>> self-nominations and platforms for elections.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have  input on tools that we might use to meet these
>>> requirements for self nomination and platform management in elections?
>>> Requirements:
>>> * archivable
>>> * public
>>> * unable to be edited once posted
>>> * clear differentiation between governed and ungoverned elections
>>> * candidates can self-nominate
>>> * low barrier to entry for tools, candidates shouldn't be restricted due
>>> to lack of knowledge of tools
>>
>> Well, doesn't the ML actually meet all of these requirements, except for having
>> the distinction between governed and ungoverned elections. Maybe we should just
>> build some tooling that watches the ML for posts with a certain subject (like
>> what you and the other election officials are currently manually enforcing) and
>> check whether the project election is governed or not, updates a wiki, etc. I
>> don't think a little bot to do that would be that difficult to write. (although
>> I could be easily overlooking something)
>>
> 
> I brought this up on IRC earlier today, but I figured I should post it to the ML
> too just in case people missed it in the scrollback. I wrote a bit of code to show
> how I thought the ML could still be used to do this:
> 
> https://github.com/mtreinish/electionbot
> 
> I haven't actually tried to run anything in the repo yet, it's just a concept at
> this point. But, I wanted to share it before I put too much effort into it to
> get some feedback on the approach.
> 
> -Matt Treinish
> 

Thanks Matt for bootstrapping that works...

It seems you've nailed pretty much all the ins and outs of election
officials works, however I have concern about going full automation.
Having humans to actually review the process before sending approval
mails still sounds like a good thing to have.

Though having a good tool like electionbot for all the preliminary steps
would be fantastic to have!


For the check_commit method, here is the little script I used to check
PTL atc status:
  https://gist.github.com/TristanCacqueray/bc0babe8261c42501830

For TC candidate, we rely on manual querying of:
 http://www.openstack.org/community/members/


On a side note, shouldn't we consider moving away from the ML ?
Something like this workflow:
* candidacy are submitted to a gerrit project
* jenkins check if candidate is valid
* election officials approve
* jenkins post candidacy (wiki and/or ml)


Finally there is the civs poll system to configure.

Regards,
Tristan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/attachments/20150430/7f976c32/attachment.pgp>