On 9/9/16 4:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > 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.
LOL. May be we need to name the release steward as "headphone jack" then! > -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ 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
