Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

I wanted to bring this up but indeed, I think that as an infrastructure
donor, there is a significant investment from our side and knowing
where and how that's going is important

> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra



-- 
Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
-----------------------------------------------------
D. 514-316-8872
D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
E. mnaser at vexxhost.com
W. https://vexxhost.com