On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jan Drake <jan_dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fascinating. The tension between community driven and committee driven > technical direction, it seems. > The community elects the TC which takes the time to make tough technical decisions. This is representative democracy (although I don't think anyone is proposing direct democracy.) > Justin, I would have been way more comfortable had your example been more > vision and architecture focused instead of consequence-control focused. > I tried to pick a case that was going to be divisive. Focusing on the "vision" example is - I would hope - uncontroversial and thus not helpful to advancing the discussion :-) > I could see the role of the TC as bringing a perspective on highest value > road-mapping across the projects and assisting in aligning decisioning to > that. I can see it as a group that makes smart decisions on the boundary > between core and satellite projects. I can see it as a driver for > encouraging integrations with other open source ecosystems. > > But, in trademarked Jan form, if you think you can add a control function, > you're likely off your chum. (pardon my use of that obscure colloquialism). > > After all, "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the > masses! Not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!" > My understanding is that the TC will have _more_ of a mandate from the masses, in that everyone elects the TC, whereas PTL voting is restricted to developers? (Of that project?) > > Less playfully, however, there is no question that a collaboration the > size of OpenStack could benefit from vision and architecture perspective > outside of the individual projects involved. That said, the intersection > of such strategic and visionary thinking requires integration with (instead > of management or separate direction of) the leadership of the projects. > > Creating this integration oriented approach rather than an implicitly > confrontational approach is, I believe, Mr Heck's fine intent. > I agree that the TC should work collaboratively with the PTLs, but I think we need to recognize that they should have different responsibilities, and thus won't see eye to eye on everything. I see this as checks and balances, rather than warfare. We'll have to trust our community to elect people that can work together; and they can always elect all the PTLs to the TC. I suspect this will more or less happen anyway, and that we're basically arguing about angels on pinheads. However, the proposal to require half the TC to be the PTLs, rather than having them be elected, seems peculiar to me. It is at least sufficiently odd that it feels like it shouldn't be our starting point. If you want to propose a "constitutional amendment" and get the community to agree to change the rules, then please do so! But, in my opinion, the right time for that is a year or two down the road, once we see how this grand experiment turns out. Until then, I expect we'll vote in most of the PTLs and additional people we think are reasonable people that will work well with them; so I expect everyone will be happy. If we get a profoundly different result from our elections, we probably have bigger problems. Justin
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
