-----Original Message----- From: Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> Reply: Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> Date: September 7, 2016 at 13:08:44 To: Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com>, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"
> 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 elections & > > "Release stewards" > > > >> On 16-09-07 12:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >>>>>> Now, the main drawback of holding elections in the middle of a > >>>>>> development cycle is that you don't want to introduce a discontinuity > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> leadership in that development cycle. To mitigate that, we propose the > >>>>>> introduction of a new role, the "release steward", which would be > >>>>>> attached to the release cycle. That person (who may or may not double > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> PTL) would be responsible for a complete release cycle on a given > >>>>>> project team, from requirements gathering phase to post-release > >>>>>> bugfix-backport phase. A sort of per-cycle release liaison on steroids. > >>>>> I think this is a great idea. Having a person be on point for a > >>>>> particular release from inception to whenever we stop caring about it > >>>>> makes a lot of sense. > >>>> I agree. Regardless of how PTL elections end up working, I think we > >>>> should definitely > >> move forward with this "Release Stewards" concept. It sounds like an > >> excellent idea. > >>> Also since "Release Stewards" are nominated by PTL, projects can just > >>> start using this concept right away (as it's not an elected position). > >>> +1 from me. > >>> > >>>> 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 one). > >> > >> Welcomed and required are two different things. I think the stable team > >> is always willing to work with new contributors. I additionally think > >> that floating the expectation that someone able to take on the release > >> steward position also is required to entertain the stable team > >> responsibilities might shy away good candidates for the release steward > >> position. I think working with the single concept of release steward > >> first is a good place to begin. Give it space to grow both as a concept > >> within OpenStack and within individual projects. > > I absolutely agree that this could scare off potentially good candidates. I > > also did > a very poor job explaining why I think this is related, I'm sorry. > > > > In my mind, if I were a Release Steward for a project. I would think I'd > > not only be in charge > of helping the initial release but also managing "post-release > bugfix-backport phase". > That to me is what a PTL does with the Stable Team, so at least I would need > to coordinate > with the Stable Team. It at least seems implied. Now whether the person be an > existing > member of the Stable Team, doesn't seem important. But if the person is > Release Steward, > I'd expect them to be able to help approve changes to the branch/release > they're stewarding. > That, implies to me, that they'll need to work within the Stable Team. Given > that train > of thought, it makes sense to me that a Release Steward who is not already a > Stable Team > member would have to become one to continue their stewardship and would be > trusted to > (maybe only at first) approve changes for their release and not for all > stable branches. > > > > Does that help to explain my reasoning for bringing that up? > > Yes it does, thanks for taking the time to expand. What you say makes > perfect sense from the perspective of the contributors. > > I'm taking a look at the perspective of a manager, who may or may not > know what our actual workflow is and how we operate. There are a number > of folks who unfortunately have to quantify their time working on > OpenStack in terms of percentage of a week or month. For anyone in that > position, and to the managers who care enough to read this list (thank > you by the way) I want to help those in this position to be able to get > permission to do the work if that is their wish. If we keep the time > required to a percentage their manager will approve then we open the > door wider. Hence my recognition of the difference between welcomed and > required. If we keep the required bit to the smallest workable piece > more managers will allow their charges to do the work or at the very > least, not block them. I absolutely agree. =) (I'm also one of those people who has to track and justify % of time on OpenStack so I appreciate your consideration of us, sincerely.) -- Ian Cordasco __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev