On 08/09/16 18:41 +0000, Hongbin Lu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] Sent: September-08-16 5:00 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards" Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/07/2016 12:27 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Barrett, Carol L wrote: >>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] >>>> I think another option would be to run the PTL election early, but >>>> just don't have the turn over happen until the master release opens >>>> up. The current transition period is > > > actually quite short as noted by the comments around how design summit planning happens. Having the PTL-next elected half way through the cycle, but having PTL current > still > own landing the current release actually provides a lot more transition time. >>>> >>>> -Sean >>> >>> I had a similar thought to Sean's, with a few changes. Why not have a PTL own the release from start to finish, with the PTL for the next release getting elected as above. In this model, it would probably be advisable (or a guideline) that a PTL not run for 2 cycles in a row, because the work load would be unmanageable. This approach could help to grow a stronger leadership pipeline for each project and provide more opportunities for people in the team to grow their skills and take on leadership. >> >> The drawback of this approach is that it breaks the governance model >> around project teams. You need a "the buck stops here" person (even >> if that power is seldom used). But you can't have two -- what happens >> if they disagree ? >> >> So it's simpler to have a single PTL at all times and one or two >> release liaisons at all times. Could be the same person though. > > It doesn't give you 2 PTLs. It gives you PTL-next that gets to make > decisions on master once it opens up, and guides it until it's a > stable branch. It doesn't seem like it breaks anything to me. So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the PTL to be the release steward (rather than having a choice there), and introduce a delay between election and start of authority for the PTL. I don't see that delay as a good thing. You would elect in April a PTL whose authority over the project would start in August. That sounds a bit weird to me. I'd rather say that the authority of the PTL starts when he is elected, and not introduce a delay.If the authority of the PTL starts in the middle of a cycle, what happen if the just-elected PTL disagree with what were planned by the previous PTL? Does the just-elected PTL have authority to override what were planned? For contributors, it is confusing to have two PTLs in one cycle. They might follow the instruction from one PTL to setup the plan for the whole cycle. Then, in the second half of the cycle, the new PTL give a totally different instruction for the same item. As a result, the plan needs to be changed or extra efforts are needed to ensure the new PTL agrees with the original plan. In this case, introducing "release stewards" doesn't solve the problem because this new role doesn't have final says.
I think you're pushing the role of the PTL a bit too far, or at least how PTLs should interact with the community. I've written about this in the past: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-September/073986.html Flavio
I don't see *forcing* the PTL to be the release steward to be a good thing either. The just-elected PTL can totally be the release steward for the upcoming cycle -- actually, that is how my proposal would work by default: the PTL elected around Boston would be the default release steward for Q, and the PTL elected around Sydney would be the default release steward for R. But I'd rather allow for some flexibility here, in case the PTL prefers to delegate more of his work. I also think allowing for more leadership roles (rather than piling it all on the PTL) helps growing a stronger leadership pipeline. In summary, I see drawbacks to your variant, and I fail to see any benefits... Am I missing something ? -- 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__________________________________________________________________________ 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
-- @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
