openstack team mailing list archive

[Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >     Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >     >> Making our multiple projects converge onto consolidated and
> >     >> well-accepted APIs is a bit painful work, but it is a
> prerequisite to
> >     >> turning openstack-common into a proper library (or set of
> libraries).
> >     >>
> >     >> I'd say the whole thing suffers from not having a proper
> >     >> team/leader/coordinator dedicated to it: relying on existing,
> >     >> overstretched PTLs to lead that effort might not be the fastest
> path.
> >     >
> >     > While I was on vacation, I read in the weekly newsletter:
> >     >
> >     >   "It developed into a request for leadership for openstack-common"
> >     >
> >     > and was like "WTF do you call the work that e.g. I, Jason, Russell
> and
> >     > Doug have been doing?"
> >     >
> >     > But I see your point is a little different - you feel there should
> >     be an
> >     > elected/appointed "PTL without a PPB vote" or whatever to
> >     represent the
> >     > project. I guess that could help clarify things since it's what
> folks
> >     > are used to with other projects.
> >
> >     Right. So far we said that openstack-common was driven by "all the
> >     PTLs", but that didn't prove particularly fast and efficient. Having
> a
> >     clear face associated with it, someone specific taking the "lead" on
> >     this project, will, I think, help a bit in getting to the next step.
> >
> >
> > Sorry if this rekindles old arguments, but could someone summarize the
> > reasons for an openstack-common "PTL" without voting rights? I would
> > have defaulted to giving them a vote *especially* because the code in
> > common is, well, common to all of the projects.
>
> So far, the PPB considered openstack-common to be driven by "all PTLs",
> so it didn't have a specific PTL.
>
> As far as future governance is concerned (technical committee of the
> Foundation), openstack-common would technically be considered a
> supporting library (rather than a core project) -- those can have leads,
> but those do not get granted an automatic TC seat.
>

OK, I can see the distinction there. I think the project needs an official
leader, even if we don't call them a PTL in the sense meant for other
projects. And I would expect anyone willing to take on the PTL role for
common to be qualified to run for one of the open positions on the new TC,
if they wanted to participate there.


>
> [ Avoiding the need to distinguish between "worthy" and "unworthy"
> projects leads was one of the many reasons why I preferred the TC to be
> completely directly-elected. ]


That does make sense.

Doug