Thierry Carrez wrote: > [...] > One interesting side-effect is that since the timing of the election > period (for PTL and TC positions) is defined in the TC charter[3] > relative to the *Summit*, it means that (unless we change this) we'll > now run elections to renew PTL and TC positions in the middle of the > cycle. Crazy, right ? That's what I first thought. But after discussing > it with various people, this is not as crazy as it sounds. > [...]
Oh. Wait. *Some* of the wording in the charter actually mentions "design summit" -- since that's dissolved into two events, we kind of need to to alter the wording there anyway. There is no status quo. So we'll have to discuss whether it's better to define our next PTL/TC elections relative to the PTG (happening Feb 20-24, 2017) or to the Summit (happening May 8-12, 2017), or to something completely different (like the release date). I still think it's simpler to run relative to Summit (so that the PTLs running for election in the coming days will have a normal 6-month term), but the other solution would work too. Personally I care about having a point person to handle a release cycle from the preparation stages (months before the PTG) to the post-release stage (months after release). I don't care as much about exactly when the name of the person holding the PTL title (may) change... since there is no perfect timing for that, you're always in the middle of 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
