Open Stack

Clark Boylan wrote:
> [...]
> In James Blair's winterscale email [0] he suggested that we create a governing council made up of the OpenDev PTL and
> a representative from each of the OpenStack Foundation's official projects that currently consume OpenDev resources
> (currently OpenStack itself, Airship, and Zuul). This suggestion creates two levels of governance for the OpenDev team.
> 
> The first is the position of PTL for the OpenDev project. If we want to continue to manage this position as we've managed it
> for the OpenStack Infra team, then we can have elections for the position every 6 months. The nominee pool and electorate
> would be individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the last 12 months.

That sounds good. Only comment: "PTL" meaning "project team lead", it's 
a bit of an OpenStack-ism which might not make perfect sense in the 
Opendev context.

> For the council, membership would be small, but I think demands on this group would also be minimal. Ideally the OpenDev team
> would be left to figure out technical details for services and this council would be used as a check on service changes or
> other behavioral updates that affect how OpenDev's users interact with the system. Since this group would be starting with
> an even number of individuals we may need to determine tie breaker requirements upfront. Also, we may want to consider
> if the "else" group of OpenDev users need a voice. Individuals representing constituent projects should be nominated by
> their project leadership.

I feel like this group should more of an advisory board (to get 
feedback) than a governance council (to vote on motions on a one project 
= one vote basis).

If you go for a governance structure, it creates a number of issues 
imho, like tie breaking, or the fact that OpenStack's vote is arguably 
more important than StarlingX's (being a pilot project) or Kata's (only 
using very few of the Opendev services).

Choosing an advisory board style, there is no formal vote, just official 
feedback on priorities and proposals, which can then be properly weighed 
by the OpenDev lead and contributors. You can integrate additional seats 
to represent "else" opendev users without having to over-think how their 
voice compares to an OSF project voice.

I'm also wondering if the advisory board should not also include seats 
for the infrastructure donors... Since we should definitely be making 
sure Opendev goes in a direction that encourages them to continue 
investing in (or increase) the resources that they give us.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)