On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:11:01PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jeremy Stanley wrote: > >I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they > >probably also don't need a PTL? > > My take is that those teams do not need to be an official project team > either. We now require some activity before approving project teams, but > packaging-deb passed before that requirement. It was approved 7 months ago > and still no sign of activity, so it's not completely crazy to kick it back > to non-official status (especially now that it doesn't trigger any > repository rename).
I think that revisiting packaging-deb's status is a reasonable thing to do.
Having said that I do have some concerns with making that decision now that
the Newton PTL elections have begun.
I suppose if we follow the letter of the constitution:
1. Only Monty can be PTL, assuming he doesn't nominate.
2. There will be no candidates and it will fall on the TC to select a PTL[1]
who's first and probably only action would be to remove the project's
official status.
Which is probably the best outcome.
Yours Tony.
[1]
http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20141128-elections-process-for-leaderless-programs.html
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
