On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > Chivers, Doug wrote: >> My concern is with the original wording “The suggested way forward there >> would be to remove the "Security project team"”. >> >> This seems like a move to instantly reduce investment in OpenStack security, >> because the majority of members of the Security Project are corporately >> funded, which will be significantly impacted by the removal of the security >> project. I have no knowledge over the difference between a working group and >> a project, like everyone else on the project we are simply here to >> contribute to OpenStack security, drive innovation in security, deliver >> documentation like OSSNs, etc, rather than get involved in the politics of >> OpenStack. >> >> In response to the various questions of why no-one from our project noticed >> that we didn’t have a nomination for the PTL, we assumed that was taken care >> of. Realistically maybe two or three people on the security project have the >> availability to be PTL, one being our current PTL, for all the rest of us >> its simply not a concern until we need to vote. >> >> On a personal note, reading –dev is unfortunately a lower priority than >> designing architectures, responding to customers and sales teams, closing >> tickets, writing decks and on the afternoon or so I can spend each week, >> working on my upstream projects (this week it was: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357978/5 - thanks to the Barbican team for >> all their work). Possibly this is wrong, but I didn’t sign up as a >> contributor to spend all my spare time reading mailing lists. > > So while I still think there is a slight disconnect (like, members of > the security team are less often involved in other teams) that results > in the Security team being more likely to miss the very few process > deadlines that apply to them, I'm not convinced it justifies removing > the "official" status of the team and make it a workgroup. > > I privately received information that explains why the PTL was not on > top of things during election weeks. With ~60 teams around there will > always be one or two that miss and that we must check on. It /always/ is > symptomatic of /some/ disconnect. But here I'm not sure it passes the > bar of "non-alignment with the community" that would make the Security > team unfit to be an official OpenStack team... > I agree, and in times like this, it's best to use common sense rather than trying to have a rule to fit everything into. In this case, Rob and the security team have put forth an explanation of what happened, I fail to see how removing them after this does anything other than foster bad will. I would vote to keep the security team around at this point.
> -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
