Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: OpenStack: Foundation

Technical Committee: new draft

 

 

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


thierry at openstack

Jun 27, 2012, 6:01 AM

Post #1 of 19 (942 views)
Permalink
Technical Committee: new draft

Hi everyone,

I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee rules:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

It was changed to reflect what the Foundation current bylaws mandate
(having a TC chair, rules for adding a core project, current PPB to
serve until first election), to neutrally present the two membership
options we have been discussing recently, to open the discussion on the
election algorithms, and be a bit more precise on the stuff that didn't
seem to trigger any discussion (yet).

I /think/ we mostly need to determine what's outlined in boxes, while
the rest is generally considered OK, but let me know if that's a wrong
assumption.

Cheers,

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


mark at openstack

Jun 27, 2012, 9:03 AM

Post #2 of 19 (922 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Thierry - thanks for the work you've put into the proposals. I think you've done a good job of laying out the decisions that need to be made with clear options.

One area that this proposal does deviate from the current PPB election process is in the area of voting rights (who gets to vote). Currently if you're a member on launchpad you can vote for PPB (but not PTL), which corresponds to the "individual members" in the foundation framework. Your proposal limits eligibility to vote for TC members to the "ATC" (active technical contributors), which is more restrictive.

I can see the rationale for limiting voting to "ATC" but at the same time I do think that the decisions of the TC impact everyone so there's an argument for letting all individual members vote in my mind. Users in particular may not contribute, but they will definitely want to feel heard.

What if we went with the ATC voting method (making it as inclusive as possible for all forms of technical contribution not just code?) but also add 1 seat that's appointed by the user committee to make sure we are always fighting for the users.

What do you think?



On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:01am, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry [at] openstack> said:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee rules:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>
> It was changed to reflect what the Foundation current bylaws mandate
> (having a TC chair, rules for adding a core project, current PPB to
> serve until first election), to neutrally present the two membership
> options we have been discussing recently, to open the discussion on the
> election algorithms, and be a bit more precise on the stuff that didn't
> seem to trigger any discussion (yet).
>
> I /think/ we mostly need to determine what's outlined in boxes, while
> the rest is generally considered OK, but let me know if that's a wrong
> assumption.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jun 27, 2012, 9:27 AM

Post #3 of 19 (920 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Mark Collier wrote:
> One area that this proposal does deviate from the current PPB election process is in the area of voting rights (who gets to vote). Currently if you're a member on launchpad you can vote for PPB (but not PTL), which corresponds to the "individual members" in the foundation framework. Your proposal limits eligibility to vote for TC members to the "ATC" (active technical contributors), which is more restrictive.

Right... The current PPB was the only board we elected, which is the
reason why it included everyone : it was the only way to get your voice
heard somehow. The Foundation sets up a general board of directors, as
well as several more targeted committees (including the technical and
user community), which allows a bit more targeted voters sets.

All "Individual members" select their representatives to the Board of
Directors, which is the broadest representation of the OpenStack
community. The user committee should reflect more particularly users.
The technical committee should reflect more particularly active
contributors to the project, to avoid the inherent forking risk in
having a non-contributing board giving orders to the agents of change of
an open source project.

> What if we went with the ATC voting method (making it as inclusive as possible for all forms of technical contribution not just code?) but also add 1 seat that's appointed by the user committee to make sure we are always fighting for the users.

Yes, the idea is to extend the definition of "Active technical
contributor" to all kinds of contributions to the project. That's why
contributing doc changes, test cases or CI improvements also count. And
the draft proposes an exception procedure to cover the corner cases like
an active bug triager that would not have contributed any change yet.

That said, if the technical committee gets to appoint a seat on the user
committee, it may be a good idea to have the user committee (UC) appoint
a seat to the TC.

As you can tell by now, I'm not a big fan of bloated boards and much
more in favor of thin committees with dedicated members. But I guess we
could amend the options on the draft and say the TC is
PTLs+4elected+1UC, or 8elected+1UC, if that sounds better.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 4, 2012, 6:32 AM

Post #4 of 19 (909 views)
Permalink
Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Hi everyone,

I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

The update reflects the contents of the latest Foundation bylaws draft,
and the results of yesterday's PPB meeting discussion (leaning towards
the PTLs+5 option, with a TC that has final oversight over all OpenStack
projects).

Regards,

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 4, 2012, 8:55 AM

Post #5 of 19 (910 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
governance.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


dug at us

Jul 5, 2012, 5:00 AM

Post #6 of 19 (909 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
make the final call. ".
I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
means the status quo remains.
While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on people's
interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
the spirit of open-source IMO.

Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need someone
to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)

Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, who
is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
this together" approach will only attract more people.

Just my 2 cents.

thanks
-Doug
________________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack>
Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
07/04/2012 11:55 AM

To
foundation [at] lists
cc

Subject
Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft






Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
governance.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


jimjag at gmail

Jul 5, 2012, 6:14 AM

Post #7 of 19 (908 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

FWIW, I tend to agree.

Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the meeks
method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
available for anyone to use.

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
> project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
> make the final call. ".
> I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
> e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
> means the status quo remains.
> While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
> guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on people's
> interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
> titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
> the spirit of open-source IMO.
>
> Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
> release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
> nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
> that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need someone
> to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)
>
> Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
> organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, who
> is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
> this together" approach will only attract more people.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ________________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
>
> Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack>
> Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
> 07/04/2012 11:55 AM
>
> To
> foundation [at] lists
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>
> Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
> PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
> governance.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


randyb at cloudscaling

Jul 5, 2012, 9:58 AM

Post #8 of 19 (906 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

I also agree. I think this idea, in particular, is important for the community to thrive. PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't sustainable. I'm not saying that's the case today. I'm simply reinforcing the ideas below.


Regards,


--Randy

Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
+1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice]
TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias






On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> FWIW, I tend to agree.
>
> Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the meeks
> method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
> available for anyone to use.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>>> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
>> project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
>> make the final call. ".
>> I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
>> e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
>> means the status quo remains.
>> While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
>> guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on people's
>> interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
>> titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
>> the spirit of open-source IMO.
>>
>> Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
>> release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
>> nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
>> that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need someone
>> to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)
>>
>> Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
>> organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, who
>> is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
>> this together" approach will only attract more people.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> thanks
>> -Doug
>> ________________________________________________________
>> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
>> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
>> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack>
>> Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
>> 07/04/2012 11:55 AM
>>
>> To
>> foundation [at] lists
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
>>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>>
>> Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
>> PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
>> governance.
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>> Release Manager, OpenStack
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


chrisfer at us

Jul 5, 2012, 11:44 AM

Post #9 of 19 (908 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

-----foundation-bounces [at] lists wrote: -----

>To: Jim Jagielski <jimjag [at] gmail>
>From: Randy Bias 
>Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
>Date: 07/05/2012 12:59PM
>Cc: foundation [at] lists
>Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
>
>I also agree.  I think this idea, in particular, is important for the community
>to thrive.  PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't sustainable.  I'm not
>saying that's the case today.  I'm simply reinforcing the ideas below.

+1

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry and Cloud Standards
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer [at] us
Twitter: christo4ferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


jbryce at rackspace

Jul 5, 2012, 12:07 PM

Post #10 of 19 (909 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

I think this is definitely something to watch over the long term. When we started out, we didn't have anything like the Project Technical Lead role. With the rapid growth in the size of the codebase and the number of contributors, having a point of coordination proved necessary, and I think most involved would agree that creating the PTL improved the communication and processes for the projects. The PTL job is certainly not glamourous and I don't think they wield it like a mini-dictator. The PTLs help out in many, many areas with cat-herding, summit planning, organization between the various projects, and with helping to drive discussions and decisions. They're also required to stand for election before every release (every 6 months), allowing for those who might abuse the position to be replaced fairly quickly. I think it would be a major change to something that has been working for a number of releases now and not necessarily beneficial at this late stage in the organization process.

This part of the structure is separate from the corporate governance and can be adjusted by the technical community and the Technical Committee going forward if needed. Keeping the role of the PTL in place through the Foundation set up has been in the plans since the first set of documents we published and that we've heard overwhelming support for to date. When we've had discussions about changes to the PTL role or the election cycle of PTLs, we've seen the vast majority prefer to keep in place what has been working. That said, the Technical Commitee will be empowered to explore the types of changes suggested here, so from the perspective of forming the Foundation (bylaws, etc) I think we are in good shape to move forward as these discussions continue.

Jonathan


On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Randy Bias wrote:

I also agree. I think this idea, in particular, is important for the community to thrive. PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't sustainable. I'm not saying that's the case today. I'm simply reinforcing the ideas below.


Regards,


--Randy

Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
+1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice]
TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias<http://twitter.com/randybias>
LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias<http://linkedin.com/in/randybias>
CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias






On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

FWIW, I tend to agree.

Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the meeks
method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
available for anyone to use.

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us<mailto:dug [at] us>> wrote:
A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
make the final call. ".
I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
means the status quo remains.
While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on people's
interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
the spirit of open-source IMO.

Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need someone
to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)

Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, who
is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
this together" approach will only attract more people.

Just my 2 cents.

thanks
-Doug
________________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us<mailto:dug [at] us>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack<mailto:thierry [at] openstack>>
Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists<mailto:foundation-bounces [at] lists>
07/04/2012 11:55 AM

To
foundation [at] lists<mailto:foundation [at] lists>
cc

Subject
Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft






Thierry Carrez wrote:
I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
governance.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists<mailto:Foundation [at] lists>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists<mailto:Foundation [at] lists>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists<mailto:Foundation [at] lists>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists<mailto:Foundation [at] lists>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


jonathan at openstack

Jul 5, 2012, 12:25 PM

Post #11 of 19 (906 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

I think this is definitely something to watch over the long term. When we started out, we didn't have anything like the Project Technical Lead role. With the rapid growth in the size of the codebase and the number of contributors, having a point of coordination proved necessary, and I think most involved would agree that creating the PTL improved the communication and processes for the projects. The PTL job is certainly not glamourous and I don't think they wield it like a mini-dictator. The PTLs help out in many, many areas with cat-herding, summit planning, organization between the various projects, and with helping to drive discussions and decisions. They're also required to stand for election before every release (every 6 months), allowing for those who might abuse the position to be replaced fairly quickly. I think it would be a major change to something that has been working for a number of releases now and not necessarily beneficial at this late stage in the organization process.

This part of the structure is separate from the corporate governance and can be adjusted by the technical community and the Technical Committee going forward if needed. Keeping the role of the PTL in place through the Foundation set up has been in the plans since the first set of documents we published and that we've heard overwhelming support for to date. When we've had discussions about changes to the PTL role or the election cycle of PTLs, we've seen the vast majority prefer to keep in place what has been working. That said, the Technical Commitee will be empowered to explore the types of changes suggested here, so from the perspective of forming the Foundation (bylaws, etc) I think we are in good shape to move forward as these discussions continue.

Jonathan


On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Randy Bias wrote:

> I also agree. I think this idea, in particular, is important for the community to thrive. PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't sustainable. I'm not saying that's the case today. I'm simply reinforcing the ideas below.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --Randy
>
> Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
> +1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice]
> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
> CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I tend to agree.
>>
>> Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the meeks
>> method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
>> available for anyone to use.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
>>>> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
>>> project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
>>> make the final call. ".
>>> I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
>>> e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>> And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
>>> means the status quo remains.
>>> While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
>>> guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on people's
>>> interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
>>> titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
>>> the spirit of open-source IMO.
>>>
>>> Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
>>> release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
>>> nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
>>> that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need someone
>>> to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)
>>>
>>> Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
>>> organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, who
>>> is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
>>> this together" approach will only attract more people.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> -Doug
>>> ________________________________________________________
>>> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
>>> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
>>> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack>
>>> Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
>>> 07/04/2012 11:55 AM
>>>
>>> To
>>> foundation [at] lists
>>> cc
>>>
>>> Subject
>>> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
>>>> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>>>
>>> Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
>>> PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
>>> governance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>> Release Manager, OpenStack
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation [at] lists
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation [at] lists
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


dug at us

Jul 5, 2012, 1:26 PM

Post #12 of 19 (908 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

One of the things that I'd like to avoid as the new foundation is formed
is inconsistency. Whether this is in how each project is run/built/etc...
or in the rules that govern each layer of the entire foundation, I
think having consistency will be a good thing as it means the same set of
rules applies across all decisions and it makes the learning curve a lot
lower for newbies. It also means we don't need to repeat
those same rules for each layer - define it once and just reuse it.
(Or even better, just point to Robert's Rules as the base (with possibly
some minor tweaks) and be done with it. :-)

For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having more power than
anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair. In the current
foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more than one vote.
That
to me is wrong. At every layer in the foundation the rules should be very
simple: someone makes a proposal, people vote and if it doesn't pass
the predetermined threshold then it fails. A tie means it didn't pass.
Everyone is on equal footing. Chairs, PTLs, etc... run the meetings but
that's the extent of their 'special' powers.

So, applying this to projects and the TC, I'm not keen on saying that the
process the TC/projects follow is separate from the foundation by-laws.
Nor do I think they should be allowed to change their process in
isolation.
IMO, the foundation by-laws should encompass both - its just a different
set of players. Saying the TC could one day define their own rules is
kind of odd to me for a couple of reasons. First, I would think the board
should have a HUGE say in this, and second this implies the TC could have
a totally different process than the rest of the foundation which will
make
us look kind of silly. If something like how we vote varies depending on
the layer of the foundation the first question people will ask is "why?"
and
I doubt we'll have a good reason other than a different set of folks
picked the rules.

Having been part of many orgs like this in the past, I can say
that keeping it as simple as possible usually makes things run much
smoother
with less perception of politics playing a role or people becoming
disenfranchised.

And finally, I think getting this correct now will be a whole lot easier
than changing it later.

-Doug

Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] openstack> wrote on 07/05/2012 03:25:48 PM:
> I think this is definitely something to watch over the long term.
> When we started out, we didn't have anything like the Project
> Technical Lead role. With the rapid growth in the size of the
> codebase and the number of contributors, having a point of
> coordination proved necessary, and I think most involved would agree
> that creating the PTL improved the communication and processes for
> the projects. The PTL job is certainly not glamourous and I don't
> think they wield it like a mini-dictator. The PTLs help out in many,
> many areas with cat-herding, summit planning, organization between
> the various projects, and with helping to drive discussions and
> decisions. They're also required to stand for election before every
> release (every 6 months), allowing for those who might abuse the
> position to be replaced fairly quickly. I think it would be a major
> change to something that has been working for a number of releases
> now and not necessarily beneficial at this late stage in the
> organization process.
>
> This part of the structure is separate from the corporate governance
> and can be adjusted by the technical community and the Technical
> Committee going forward if needed. Keeping the role of the PTL in
> place through the Foundation set up has been in the plans since the
> first set of documents we published and that we've heard
> overwhelming support for to date. When we've had discussions about
> changes to the PTL role or the election cycle of PTLs, we've seen
> the vast majority prefer to keep in place what has been working.
> That said, the Technical Commitee will be empowered to explore the
> types of changes suggested here, so from the perspective of forming
> the Foundation (bylaws, etc) I think we are in good shape to move
> forward as these discussions continue.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Randy Bias wrote:
>
> I also agree. I think this idea, in particular, is important for
> the community to thrive. PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't
> sustainable. I'm not saying that's the case today. I'm simply
> reinforcing the ideas below.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --Randy
>
> Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
> +1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice]
> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
> CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias
>
>

>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree.
>
> Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the
meeks
> method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
> available for anyone to use.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug [at] us> wrote:
> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
> project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
> make the final call. ".
> I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making system -
> e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
> means the status quo remains.
> While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
> guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on
people's
> interest and desire for it to succeed. Leaders tend not to need formal
> titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
> the spirit of open-source IMO.
>
> Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
> release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
> nag" role. They still don't have any more power than anyone else. And
> that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need
someone
> to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back :-)
>
> Additionally, I think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
> organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what,
who
> is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
> this together" approach will only attract more people.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ________________________________________________________
> STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug [at] us
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
> Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack>
> Sent by: foundation-bounces [at] lists
> 07/04/2012 11:55 AM
>
> To
> foundation [at] lists
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
>
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>
> Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
> PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
> governance.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


randyb at cloudscaling

Jul 5, 2012, 1:31 PM

Post #13 of 19 (908 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

I completely concur. They have been great in the face of a lot of pain and cat-herding.

And I'd like to reiterate again, lest I get misconstrued that I wasn't claiming they wield it like a mini-dictator, it's just something we don't want to fall into, obviously. And I'm just stating the obvious because some times it's helpful to get out on the table those unspoken assumptions we all have.



On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:

> The PTL job is certainly not glamourous and I don't think they wield it like a mini-dictator.


lloydostack at gmail

Jul 9, 2012, 10:53 PM

Post #14 of 19 (873 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack> wrote:
>
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee

I think the document might be able to be clarified because I worry
that the following two statements are in conflict:

"[technical committee] decides on issues affecting multiple projects,
forms an ultimate appeals board for technical decisions, and generally
has oversight over all OpenStack projects."

"Each OpenStack core project has an elected Project Technical Lead
("PTL") who drives the project goals and has the final call over
technical disputes within that project. Each project community should
be self-managing by the contributors, and all disputes should be
resolved through active debate and discussion by the community itself.
However if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can make
the final call."

I suspect it's just a matter of language not sentiment, and that the
intention is for the PTL to guide her project aligning with the
greater OpenStack project


Thank you,
Lloyd
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 10, 2012, 2:49 AM

Post #15 of 19 (873 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
> I think the document might be able to be clarified because I worry
> that the following two statements are in conflict:
> [...]
> I suspect it's just a matter of language not sentiment, and that the
> intention is for the PTL to guide her project aligning with the
> greater OpenStack project

Yes, I agree "final call" can be misunderstood. I shall revise the
wording so that it's clearer that PTLs and core projects stay under the
ultimate authority of the TC.

Thanks!

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 11, 2012, 5:56 AM

Post #16 of 19 (867 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lloyd Dewolf wrote:
>> I think the document might be able to be clarified because I worry
>> that the following two statements are in conflict:
>> [...]
>> I suspect it's just a matter of language not sentiment, and that the
>> intention is for the PTL to guide her project aligning with the
>> greater OpenStack project
>
> Yes, I agree "final call" can be misunderstood. I shall revise the
> wording so that it's clearer that PTLs and core projects stay under the
> ultimate authority of the TC.

New draft posted, hopefully with clearer language.
Regards,

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


anne at openstack

Jul 12, 2012, 12:02 PM

Post #17 of 19 (868 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

I'm reviewing this section with an eye towards a couple of concepts:
ATCs should come to the Design Summit
ATCs elect the TC
ATCs elect the PTLs but only for projects on which they are ATCs.
(Some projects don't have PTLs.)

Here's the relevant paragraph that I'd propose revising for clarity
and to further emphasize how non-programming contributors can become
ATCs:

Individual Members who committed a change to any of the official
OpenStack projects (over which the TC has final authority) over the
last two 6-month release cycles are automatically considered ATC.
Specific contributors who did not have a change recently accepted in
one of the OpenStack projects but nevertheless feel their contribution
to the OpenStack project is technical in nature (bug triagers,
technical documentation writers...) can exceptionally apply for ATC by
sending an email to the TC chair.

Needs definition: "official OpenStack projects"
are only those listed in http://github.com/openstack, right? Perhaps
define that scope in this document?

If ATC-ness is defined by the projects listed in
http://github.com/openstack, then any recently-added blogger on
openstack-planet qualifies as an ATC, is this correct?

Also devstack is not listed in https://github.com/openstack/, are
contributors to devstack not going to be ATCs?

"apply for ATC by sending an email to the TC chair. " I recently went
through the Python Software Foundation process to become a member, and
I liked how the per-requisite is that you are nominated by an existing
member. Could ATCs be nominated by others, not just self-applying?
Also the TC chair should not be a bottle neck for this application
process, can we define another process?

Lastly, is it only bug triagers that are important enough to become
ATCs? For docs, bug reporters are especially helpful - triaged doc
bugs are more valuable of course, but without doc bugs being reported
they'll never improve. It's possible that bug reporters are also bug
fixers, I'm fortunate to have observed that in docs as well. But are
we capturing those who test OpenStack and report bugs including
security holes as ATCs?

My suggested revision is:

Individual Members who committed a change to any of the official
OpenStack projects listed at https://github.com/openstack/ over the
last two 6-month release cycles are automatically considered ATC. The
TC has final authority over the listing of projects. Specific
contributors who did not have a change recently accepted in one of the
OpenStack projects but nevertheless feel their contribution to the
OpenStack project is technical in nature (bug triagers, technical
documentation writers...) can exceptionally apply for ATC either by
sending an email to the TC chair or by being nominated by an existing
ATC via email to the TC chair.

Again, the process for ATC nomination needs more detail to avoid a
bottle neck at the TC chair's inbox.

Thanks for the discussion.
Anne

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry [at] openstack> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
>
> The update reflects the contents of the latest Foundation bylaws draft,
> and the results of yesterday's PPB meeting discussion (leaning towards
> the PTLs+5 option, with a TC that has final oversight over all OpenStack
> projects).
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation [at] lists
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 12, 2012, 1:14 PM

Post #18 of 19 (872 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Anne Gentle wrote:
> I'm reviewing this section with an eye towards a couple of concepts:
> ATCs should come to the Design Summit
> ATCs elect the TC
> ATCs elect the PTLs but only for projects on which they are ATCs.
> (Some projects don't have PTLs.)
>
> Here's the relevant paragraph that I'd propose revising for clarity
> and to further emphasize how non-programming contributors can become
> ATCs:
>
> Individual Members who committed a change to any of the official
> OpenStack projects (over which the TC has final authority) over the
> last two 6-month release cycles are automatically considered ATC.
> Specific contributors who did not have a change recently accepted in
> one of the OpenStack projects but nevertheless feel their contribution
> to the OpenStack project is technical in nature (bug triagers,
> technical documentation writers...) can exceptionally apply for ATC by
> sending an email to the TC chair.
>
> Needs definition: "official OpenStack projects"
> are only those listed in http://github.com/openstack, right? Perhaps
> define that scope in this document?

The definition is at the top paragraph: "including core projects,
library projects, gating projects and supporting projects". Those
categories are all well-defined by the PPB. The only one that is still a
bit vague is the "supporting projects", which currently are openstack-ci
and openstack-manuals.

> If ATC-ness is defined by the projects listed in
> http://github.com/openstack, then any recently-added blogger on
> openstack-planet qualifies as an ATC, is this correct?

I think extra projects found their way there that do not fit in the
above definition. That includes openstack-planet, which is bound to
disappear very soon anyway.

> Also devstack is not listed in https://github.com/openstack/, are
> contributors to devstack not going to be ATCs?

devstack is a gating project (like tempest). So it is included.

> "apply for ATC by sending an email to the TC chair. " I recently went
> through the Python Software Foundation process to become a member, and
> I liked how the per-requisite is that you are nominated by an existing
> member. Could ATCs be nominated by others, not just self-applying?
> Also the TC chair should not be a bottle neck for this application
> process, can we define another process?

We could add a nomination process. But this is an exception procedure
for people feeling that their contribution is significant, technical,
but does not appear within our rules. So I fear that requiring
nominations defeats that purpose. For the bottleneck aspect, I don't
expect that many requests... It's really for people that slipped between
the cracks.

> Lastly, is it only bug triagers that are important enough to become
> ATCs? For docs, bug reporters are especially helpful - triaged doc
> bugs are more valuable of course, but without doc bugs being reported
> they'll never improve. It's possible that bug reporters are also bug
> fixers, I'm fortunate to have observed that in docs as well. But are
> we capturing those who test OpenStack and report bugs including
> security holes as ATCs?

It's just difficult to set a bar of bug reporting that constitutes a
significant contribution. The exception process should take care of that.

> My suggested revision is:
>
> Individual Members who committed a change to any of the official
> OpenStack projects listed at https://github.com/openstack/ over the
> last two 6-month release cycles are automatically considered ATC. The
> TC has final authority over the listing of projects. Specific
> contributors who did not have a change recently accepted in one of the
> OpenStack projects but nevertheless feel their contribution to the
> OpenStack project is technical in nature (bug triagers, technical
> documentation writers...) can exceptionally apply for ATC either by
> sending an email to the TC chair or by being nominated by an existing
> ATC via email to the TC chair.

Agree with most of it (except your definition of official openstack
project which does not match the PPB definition, see above). I'll
rewrite that part so that it's clearer.

Thanks!

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


thierry at openstack

Jul 25, 2012, 3:29 AM

Post #19 of 19 (835 views)
Permalink
Re: Technical Committee: new draft [In reply to]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> My suggested revision is:
>>
>> Individual Members who committed a change to any of the official
>> OpenStack projects listed at https://github.com/openstack/ over the
>> last two 6-month release cycles are automatically considered ATC. The
>> TC has final authority over the listing of projects. Specific
>> contributors who did not have a change recently accepted in one of the
>> OpenStack projects but nevertheless feel their contribution to the
>> OpenStack project is technical in nature (bug triagers, technical
>> documentation writers...) can exceptionally apply for ATC either by
>> sending an email to the TC chair or by being nominated by an existing
>> ATC via email to the TC chair.
>
> Agree with most of it (except your definition of official openstack
> project which does not match the PPB definition, see above). I'll
> rewrite that part so that it's clearer.

Done: pushed a new draft that clarifies the list of projects considered
for ATCness, and adding the possibility to nominate.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation [at] lists
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.