Zane Bitter wrote: > On 22/08/14 08:33, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> We also >> still need someone to have the final say in case of deadlocked issues. > > -1 we really don't.
I know we disagree on that :) >> People say we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack for which the >> PTL ultimate power is needed, so we could get rid of them. I'd argue >> that the main reason we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack is >> precisely *because* we have a system to break them if they arise. > > s/that many/any/ IME and I think that threatening to break a deadlock by > fiat is just as bad as actually doing it. And by 'bad' I mean > community-poisoningly, trust-destroyingly bad. I guess I've been active in too many dysfunctional free and open source software projects -- I put a very high value on the ability to make a final decision. Not being able to make a decision is about as community-poisoning, and also results in inability to make any significant change or decision. >> That >> encourages everyone to find a lazy consensus. That part of the PTL job >> works. Let's fix the part that doesn't work (scaling/burnout). > > Let's allow projects to decide for themselves what works. Not every > project is the same. The net effect of not having a PTL having the final call means the final call would reside at the Technical Committee level. I don't feel like the Technical Committee should have final say on a project-specific matter. It's way better that the local leader, chosen by all the contributors of THAT project every 6 months, makes that final decision. Or do you also want to get rid of the Technical Committee ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
