On 10/08/17 14:04 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
On 2017-08-07 03:50 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:Hello Everyone :)A quick reminder that we are in the last days for PTL candidate announcements. If you want to stand for PTL, don't delay, follow the instructions at [1] to make sure the community knows your intentions. Make sure your candidacy has been submitted to the openstack/election repository and approved by election officials. Election statistics[2]: This means that with approximately 2.5 days left more than 27% of projects will be deemed leaderless. In this case the TC will be bound by [3].I thought that the language in this sentence, that the TC is bound by the referenced resolution was a bit of mis-stating the relationship, but I thought I would let it pass and that things would work themselves out. However having read the language in Emmett's post to the TC reporting which programs don't have a self-nominated PTL, I'm motivated to clarify. The TC is not bound. The TC has agreed to follow a process. The election officials are bound, in as much as they are obliged to communicate the list of leaderless programs to the TC without delay. The TC is enabled by the process, not bound by it. The TC CAN appoint a leader, they are not obliged to appoint a leader. The TC may do other things as well, it depends on the circumstances. Also to clarify, the election officials serve the TC, not the other way around.
I would like to clarify this sentence, though. I do not think the election officials serve the TC, neither the TC serves the election officials. Both bodies serve the community and the processes defined by it. The fact the TC oversees the community does not mean the latter (or any group in it) serves the TC. if anything, I'd prefer to think the TC serves the community and the groups the conform it. That said, I think we could argue for a long time on the terms and words used to communicate the various relationships. While I believe words are extremely important, I also believe they are a bit less important if the message goes through. In this case the message is that there are cases of leaderless teams this time around and there's a process we can, should, and will follow. Thanks for the clarifications, Anita. Thanks for the hard work on the elections, Kendall. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
