Hello, it's definately our bad that we missed elections in OpenStackSalt project. Reason is similar to Rob's - we are active on different channels (mostly IRC as we keep regular meetings) and don't used to reading mailing lists with lots of generic topics (it would be good to have separate mailing list for such calls and critical topics or individual mails to project's core members).
Our project is very active [1], trying to do things the Openstack way and I think it would be a pitty to remove it from Big Tent just because we missed mail and therefore our first PTL election. Of course I don't want to excuse our fault. In case it's not too late, we will try to be more active in mailing lists like openstack-dev and not miss such important events next time. [1] http://stackalytics.com/?module=openstacksalt-group -Filip On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As announced previously[1][2], there were no PTL candidates within the > election deadline for a number of official OpenStack project teams: > Astara, UX, OpenStackSalt and Security. > > In the Astara case, the current team working on it would like to abandon > the project (and let it be available for any new team who wishes to take > it away). A change should be proposed really soon now to go in that > direction. > > In the UX case, the current PTL (Piet Kruithof) very quickly reacted, > explained his error and asked to be considered for the position for > Ocata. The TC will officialize his nomination at the next meeting, > together with the newly elected PTLs. > > That leaves us with OpenStackSalt and Security, where nobody reacted to > the announcement that we are missing PTL candidates. That points to a > real disconnect between those teams and the rest of the community. Even > if you didn't have the election schedule in mind, it was pretty hard to > miss all the PTL nominations in the email last week. > > The majority of TC members present at the meeting yesterday suggested > that those project teams should be removed from the Big Tent, with their > design summit space allocation slightly reduced to match that (and make > room for other not-yet-official teams). > > In the case of OpenStackSalt, it's a relatively new addition, and if > they get their act together they could probably be re-proposed in the > future. In the case of Security, it points to a more significant > disconnect (since it's not the first time the PTL misses the nomination > call). We definitely still need to care about Security (and we also need > a home for the Vulnerability Management team), but I think the "Security > team" acts more like a workgroup than as an official project team, as > evidenced by the fact that nobody in that team reacted to the lack of > PTL nomination, or the announcement that the team missed the bus. > > The suggested way forward there would be to remove the "Security project > team", have the Vulnerability Management Team file to be its own > official project team (in the same vein as the stable maintenance team), > and have Security be just a workgroup rather than a project team. > > Thoughts, comments ? > > [1] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016- > September/103904.html > [2] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016- > September/103939.html > > -- > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: Digital 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
