Open Stack

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> One of the things that OpenStack does really well is review our process
>> for various activities. I don't believe we have had a discussion in the
>> past reviewing our electoral process and I think it would be good to
>> have this discussion.
>>
>> There are two issues that I feel need to be addressed:
>> Item One: the health of our voter engagement for the tc election
>> Item Two: messaging around campaigning
>> others may feel additional issues need some airtime, if you can think of
>> other issues affection our election process for ptl and/or tc elections,
>> do add your item to the list.
>>
>> Item One:
>>     the health of our voter engagement for the tc election
>>
>> Going by voter turnout, the health of individual programs as reflected
>> in the ptl voter turnout statistics is sound (43.5% voter turnout or
>> better) however the health of the voter turnout for the tc election
>> process could tolerate some scrutiny.
>>
>> For the April 2014 tc election the voter turnout was 29.7%. We have had
>> a total of three tc elections in the history of OpenStack and our voter
>> turnout percentage is dropping.
>> First TC Election, March 2013: 33.6% voter turnout
>> Second TC Election, October 2013: 30.9% voter turnout
>> Third TC Election, April 2014: 29.7% voter turnout
>
> IMO the single biggest factor dampening down interest in the TC
> elections would be the staggered terms, such that only circa half
> the seats are contested in each election.
>
> This, I feel, undermines the sense of there being a potential for
> an overall "changing of the guard" occurring on each cycle.
>
> I appreciate that the current model is in place to ensure some degree
> of continuity across cycles, but I suspect much of that continuity
> would emerge naturally in any case ... i.e. if we were to change over
> to an  all-seats-up-for-grabs model, I suspect the overall outcome
> wouldn't actually be that different in terms of the TC composition.
>
> However, it might make for a more open contest, and feel like less of
> foregone conclusion ... possibly with the last few seats being contested
> by candidates with less of a "traditional" openstack backgroud (e.g.
> from one of the smaller projects on the edge of the ecosystem, or even
> from the user/operator community).
>
> And that might be just the ticket to reverse the perception of voter
> apathy.
>
>> Now our actual votes cast are increasing, but the size of the electorate
>> is increasing faster, with proportionally fewer ATCs voting
>> March 2013: 208 votes cast, 619 authorized voters
>> October 2013: 342 votes cast, 1106 authorized voters
>> April 2014: 448 votes cast, 1510 authorized voters
>>
>> I would like for there to be a discussion around voter engagement in the
>> tc election.
>>
>> Item Two:
>>     messaging around campaigning
>>
>> Right now we have no messaging around election campaigning and I think
>> we should have some.
>>
>> Specifically I feel we should state that the TC requires candidates and
>> their backers to campaign in the spirit of the OpenStack ideals
>> (Openness, Transparency, Commonality, Integration, Quality...)  as
>> stated in the TC mission statement[footnote] while refraining from
>> sending unsolicited email and also refraining from holding privately
>> sponsored campaign events. Campaigning is expected to be done in the
>> open with public access to links and content available to all.
>
> Agree with the spirit of the above, but I do feel we should be able
> to rely on a "gentleperson's agreement" between the candidates to
> play fair and allow their individual record stand for itself.

We should and do, but campaign activities may be driven by someone
other than the candidate. Having a clearly stated policy about what
the community considers acceptable will help guide the actions of
everyone involved.

To take Anita's examples: In-person events exclude community members
who can't travel to the event, even if no invitation is required to
gain entrance. Private mailings are by their very nature exclusionary,
since not everyone sees the information being shared. Thankfully,
neither type of campaigning is necessary for us to hold elections.

Our community is actually quite good at open governance. We work hard
to make and review project decisions of all sorts using public tools
like this mailing list, gerrit, etherpads, and the wiki to allow for
geographic and temporal distance between community members. Elections
are an important aspect of our governance, and as such it is
appropriate for us to encourage everyone to conduct election-related
activities in an open and non-exclusionary way.

Doug

>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
>> I welcome your participation in this discussion.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Anita.
>> anteaya
>>
>> [footnote] The  Technical Committee ("TC") is tasked with providing the
>> technical  leadership for OpenStack as a whole (all official programs,
>> as defined  below). It enforces OpenStack ideals (Openness,
>> Transparency,  Commonality, Integration, Quality...), decides on issues
>> affecting  multiple programs, forms an ultimate appeals board for
>> technical  decisions, and generally has oversight over all the OpenStack
>> project.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev