On 16-09-07 02:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
-----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.)
Thanks Ian, I'm glad we are in agreement. I know you had to cut back on
duties a while ago. I hope you are able to consider helping in this role
if you are interested in doing so. i think you'd be great at it.
Thank you,
Anita.
--
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
