John Griffith wrote: > I think Sean Dague made some really good points and I'd tend to lean > that way. Honestly charters, bylaws, governance etc shift or are > rewritten fairly often. Why not just change when we do elections to > correspond with releases and keep the continuity that we have now. Is > there a problem with the existing terms and cycles that maybe I'm missing?
AFAICT this is not what Sean is proposing. He is saying that we should run elections in the weeks before Summit as usual, but the newly-elected PTL would /not/ take over the current PTL until 3 months later when the next development branches are opened. While it's true that there are projects with a lot of continuity and succession planning, with the old PTL staying around after they have been replaced, there are also a fair share of projects where the PTL is replaced by election and either rage-quits or lowers their involvement significantly as a result. I'd rather have the /possibility/ to separate the PTL from the release steward role and ensure continuity. That doesn't prevent you from doing it Nova-style and use the PTL as the release steward. It just lets you use someone else if you want to. A bit like keeping a headphone jack. Options. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
