On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > Clark Boylan wrote: > > [...] > > In James Blair's winterscale email [0] he suggested that we create a > > governing council made up of the OpenDev PTL and > > a representative from each of the OpenStack Foundation's official projects > > that currently consume OpenDev resources > > (currently OpenStack itself, Airship, and Zuul). This suggestion creates > > two levels of governance for the OpenDev team. > > > > The first is the position of PTL for the OpenDev project. If we want to > > continue to manage this position as we've managed it > > for the OpenStack Infra team, then we can have elections for the position > > every 6 months. The nominee pool and electorate > > would be individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the last > > 12 months. > > That sounds good. Only comment: "PTL" meaning "project team lead", it's > a bit of an OpenStack-ism which might not make perfect sense in the > Opendev context. > > > For the council, membership would be small, but I think demands on this > > group would also be minimal. Ideally the OpenDev team > > would be left to figure out technical details for services and this council > > would be used as a check on service changes or > > other behavioral updates that affect how OpenDev's users interact with the > > system. Since this group would be starting with > > an even number of individuals we may need to determine tie breaker > > requirements upfront. Also, we may want to consider > > if the "else" group of OpenDev users need a voice. Individuals representing > > constituent projects should be nominated by > > their project leadership. > > I feel like this group should more of an advisory board (to get > feedback) than a governance council (to vote on motions on a one project > = one vote basis). > > If you go for a governance structure, it creates a number of issues > imho, like tie breaking, or the fact that OpenStack's vote is arguably > more important than StarlingX's (being a pilot project) or Kata's (only > using very few of the Opendev services). > > Choosing an advisory board style, there is no formal vote, just official > feedback on priorities and proposals, which can then be properly weighed > by the OpenDev lead and contributors. You can integrate additional seats > to represent "else" opendev users without having to over-think how their > voice compares to an OSF project voice. > > I'm also wondering if the advisory board should not also include seats > for the infrastructure donors... Since we should definitely be making > sure Opendev goes in a direction that encourages them to continue > investing in (or increase) the resources that they give us.
I wanted to bring this up but indeed, I think that as an infrastructure donor, there is a significant investment from our side and knowing where and how that's going is important > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-Infra mailing list > OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra -- Mohammed Naser — vexxhost ----------------------------------------------------- D. 514-316-8872 D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200 E. mna...@vexxhost.com W. https://vexxhost.com _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
