Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> [...]
>> Here is mine: it would fail to take into account that preparation for a
>> development cycle starts a few months /before/ PTG, not a just few weeks
>> before.
>
> Do we really expect the next cycle PTL to be planning for the next cycle
> midway through the current
On 09/09/16 03:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> Do we really expect the next cycle PTL to be planning for the next cycle
> midway through the current cycle? That seems pretty extreme to me, when
> we're still crunching to the 3rd milestone and trying to wrap things up
> for feature freeze, which
On 9/9/2016 6:49 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Rob Cresswell wrote:
I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this
all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't
really need to change.
Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but I
On 9/9/2016 3:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
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.
What's preventing any projects from delegating release duties to
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
On 2016-09-09 06:35:10 -0600 (-0600), John Griffith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Thierry Carrez
> wrote:
[...]
> > 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 he
On 9/9/16 11:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 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 r
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 m
> -Original Message-
> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com]
> Sent: September-09-16 8:19 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections &
> "Release stewa
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
I slightly disagree with enforcing another formal role to all teams. I
feel that we have enough of them (release liaison for one) to cover for
release cross-project work, and projects are free to set their teams
with more roles if needed.
Yo
Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> [...]
> I slightly disagree with enforcing another formal role to all teams. I
> feel that we have enough of them (release liaison for one) to cover for
> release cross-project work, and projects are free to set their teams
> with more roles if needed.
You should probably
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:42 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
> >
On 08/09/16 16:48 -0600, Doug Wiegley wrote:
On Sep 8, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the
PTL to be the relea
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Rob Cresswell wrote:
I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this
all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't
really need to change.
Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but I see
what you mean.
On 08/09/16 18:41 +, 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&quo
This makes sense to me. I think I'm having a slow day and wasn't connecting the
dots. Having the next PTL come in and immediately hear feedback and begin
planning how to address it, rather than coming in shortly before the planning
event without a feedback loop, sounds like a good move.
+1
Rob
Rob Cresswell wrote:
> I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this
> all feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't
> really need to change.
Except the proposal here is actually to not change anything, but I see
what you mean.
> I've read the pros
I've been toying with send this email for a while, but here goes: this all
feels like overcomplication and changing of a system that doesn't really need
to change.
I've read the pros and cons, and I still can't really see a convincing reason
not to move the PTL election to just-before-PTG, so t
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I'm also not very concerned about delayed authority of the PTL. Peaceful
> handoff should be a pretty basic tenant in projects. Knowing about it
> for a longer time shouldn't be a big deal. If it causes giant strife to
> pass the torch from one PTL to the next there is s
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
On 08/09/16 04:46, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 11:33 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
>>
>> I like this. As someone that has been PTL for multiple cycles, it is
>> incredibly stressful trying to finish the release, start planning for the
>> next one, manage summit planning, etc. I'd love to have
On 07/09/16 12:04 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 11:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
>> Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
>> middle of the next development cycl
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann
> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>
>>> So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the
>>> PTL to be the release steward (rather than h
Excerpts from John Griffith's message of 2016-09-08 14:13:14 -0600:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann
> wrote:
>
> > On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> So... the differen
On 9/8/16 7:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> 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 an
Good comment and I have an answer inline.
On 9/8/16 2:41 PM, 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: [o
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann
wrote:
> On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the
>>> PTL to be the release steward (rathe
On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
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 a
> -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 D
10:58:52
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards"
On 09/07/2016 10:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
Summit will
On 07/09/16 17:43 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info on the
rationale for that at
On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> 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 s
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean McGinnis [mailto:sean.mcgin...@gmx.com]
> Sent: September-07-16 3:17 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections &
> "Release st
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:07:22PM -0400, 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
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-09-07 18:24:46 +0200:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Doug, Thierry,
> >
> > Do we want the stewards to serve as the CPL for Release team as well?
>
> Yes, they probably would be an evolution of the current release
> liaisons. Like I said in the email,
On 9/7/2016 11:33 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
I like this. As someone that has been PTL for multiple cycles, it is
incredibly stressful trying to finish the release, start planning for the
next one, manage summit planning, etc. I'd love to have someone
designated to manage the release-specific bi
On 16-09-07 02:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anita Kuno
Reply: Anita Kuno
Date: September 7, 2016 at 13:08:44
To: Ian Cordasco , OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections
On 9/7/2016 11:35 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Monty Taylor
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: September 7, 2016 at 10:58:52
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future
-Original Message-
From: Anita Kuno
Reply: Anita Kuno
Date: September 7, 2016 at 13:08:44
To: Ian Cordasco , OpenStack Development Mailing List
(not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards"
> On
On 16-09-07 01:59 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anita Kuno
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: September 7, 2016 at 12:03:25
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future
-Original Message-
From: Anita Kuno
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: September 7, 2016 at 12:03:25
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards"
On 2016-09-07 16:20:49 + (+), Barrett, Carol L wrote:
[...]
> Why not have a PTL own the release from start to finish, with the
> PTL for the next release getting elected as above.
[...]
An overwhelming majority (87%) of our official project teams'
deliverables do not follow a synchronous
Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:44 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
> stewards"
>
> Hi everyone,
>
&g
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
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Ian Cordasco
wrote:
> One question, should "Release Stewards" also be members of the Stable Team
> for that project or will they become members of the Stable Team? It seems
> like there should be a relationship there to me (although maybe not a
> strictly enforced
mber 7, 2016 at 10:58:52
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections &
>> "Release stewards"
>>
>>> On 09/07/2016 10:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
&g
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards"
On 09/07/2016 10:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
Summit will happen further away from the release day and m
: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
> stewards"
>
>> On 09/07/2016 10:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
>>
-Original Message-
From: Monty Taylor
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: September 7, 2016 at 10:58:52
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards&quo
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
> Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
> middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info on the
> rati
On 16-09-07 12:20 PM, Barrett, Carol L wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:05 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards&q
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 c
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Doug, Thierry,
>
> Do we want the stewards to serve as the CPL for Release team as well?
Yes, they probably would be an evolution of the current release
liaisons. Like I said in the email, "a sort of per-cycle release liaison
on steroids".
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
-Original Message-
From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:05 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release
stewards"
On 09/07/2016 11:43 AM, Thierry Carr
On 09/07/2016 11:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
> Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
> middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info on the
> rationale for
Doug, Thierry,
Do we want the stewards to serve as the CPL for Release team as well?
-- Dims
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons#Release_management
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-09-07 17:43:59 +0200:
On 09/07/2016 10:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
> Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
> middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info on the
> rationale for
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-09-07 17:43:59 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
> Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
> middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info
Hi everyone,
As you probably know by now, starting with the Boston event in 2017, the
Summit will happen further away from the release day and more around the
middle of the next development cycle. You can find more info on the
rationale for that at [1] and [2] if interested, this is not the topic
60 matches
Mail list logo
