Hi, I'm not sure if it's a right place to continue this discussion, but if there are doubts that such role is needed, we should not wait for another half a year to drop it.
Also I'm not sure if a single engineer (or two engineers) can handle majority of upcoming patches + specs + meetings around features. Sergii and Igor put a lot of efforts to make it work, but does it really scale? I think it would be better to offload more responsibilities to core groups, and if core team (of specific project) wants to see formal or informal leader, let them decide. I would be really interested to see feedback from current component leads. Thanks, On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > "No need to rush" does not mean we should postpone > team structure changes until Ocata. IMO, CL role > (when it is exposed to Fuel) contradicts to our > modularization activities. Fuel should be an aggregator > of components. What if we decide to use Ironic or > Neutron as Fuel components? Should we chose also > Ironic CL? NO! Ironic is an independent > project with its own PTL. > > I agree with Mike that we could remove this CL > role in a month if have consensus. But does it > make any sense to chose CLs now and then > immediately remove this role? Probably, it is better > to make a decision right now. I'd really like to > see here in this ML thread opinions of our current > CLs and other people. > > > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko < > dborodae...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:19:27PM +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote: >> > > I think this call is too late to change a structure for now. I suggest >> > > that we always respect the policy we've accepted, and follow it. >> > > >> > > If Component Leads role is under a question, then I'd continue the >> > > discussion, hear opinion of current component leads, and give this a >> time >> > > to be discussed. I'd have nothing against removing this role in a >> month >> > > from now if we reach a consensus on this topic - no need to wait for >> the >> > > cycle end. >> > >> > Sure, there is no need to rush. I'd also like to see current CL >> opinions. >> >> Considering that, while there's an ongoing discussion on how to change >> Fuel team structure for Ocata, there's also an apparent consensus that >> we still want to have component leads for Newton, I'd like to call once >> again for volunteers to self-nominate for component leads of >> fuel-library, fuel-web, and fuel-ui. We've got 2 days left until >> nomination period is over, and no volunteer so far :( >> >> -- >> Dmitry Borodaenko >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
