On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:42:32PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > As part of our discussion, we realized that over time we'll be > automating more and more of the submissions to the requirements > repo so the core review team (and everyone else) will likely end > up submitting fewer manual patches. This points out a difference > in the nature of this team from others that we'll need to address > to avoid arriving at the unlikely situation where no human is > actually able to vote for PTL. It's more likely that none of the > core review team would be on the voter list using our usual "who > has landed a patch" rule, and that would be bad as well, IMO. > > So, the new team will need to add an item to their bootstrapping > todo list to specify how their electorate is identified to ensure > we can continue to have healthy, representative, elections. Based > on my interpretation of the TC charter [1], we don't need a rules > change. Adding some team documentation and (as Jeremy pointed out) > active maintenance of the "extra-atcs" list for the team in the > governance repository should be sufficient. > > I propose that we defer any real discussion of what the policy > should be until after the current election, but try to work it out > before the team applies for big tent membership.
Sounds like a good plan. Tony.
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
