[OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
Hello everyone, The OpenDev project has been running semi formally for about a year now. During this time we have tried to accomodate the needs of our various constituent projects, but we've still (for the most part) formally operated under OpenStack's governance. In order to better serve the projects we host that are not OpenStack we think it is important for OpenDev to become an independent entity with its own governance structure. 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. 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. As for next steps, I think we want to sort out these governance details to where we are generally happy with them, then we can make the formal request to the OpenStack TC to pull anchor and sail a bit more independently. Feedback is more than welcome, Clark [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130896.html ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
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. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez 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
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
On 2019-12-04 09:45:48 -0500 (-0500), Mohammed Naser wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > > 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 Yep, you mentioned it at the PTG and I think it's a great idea. Not only does it provide a means for technical representatives from our resource donors to give more direct feedback and even debate topics between one another, it also gives the OpenDev sysadmins a clearer point of contact when they need to reach out to those same donors. Combining with Thierry's idea, perhaps there are two advisory boards for OpenDev, one for the projects participating in it and one for the resource donors? Or would they be better combined into a single advisory board? And yeah, on the earlier "PTL" point, I agree we could stand to come up with a better term (service coordinator?). -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2019-12-04 09:45:48 -0500 (-0500), Mohammed Naser wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] 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 Yep, you mentioned it at the PTG and I think it's a great idea. Not only does it provide a means for technical representatives from our resource donors to give more direct feedback and even debate topics between one another, it also gives the OpenDev sysadmins a clearer point of contact when they need to reach out to those same donors. Combining with Thierry's idea, perhaps there are two advisory boards for OpenDev, one for the projects participating in it and one for the resource donors? Or would they be better combined into a single advisory board? For the sake of simplicity I'd suggest having a single stakeholders/advisory board, especially if we don't expect those boards to formally vote (one seat = one vote style) on motions. The main idea, as you mentioned, is to have clear contact points and get their feedback on priorities and direction. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, at 12:05 PM, Clark Boylan wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The OpenDev project has been running semi formally for about a year > now. During this time we have tried to accomodate the > needs of our various constituent projects, but we've still (for the > most part) formally operated under OpenStack's governance. > In order to better serve the projects we host that are not OpenStack we > think it is important for OpenDev to become an > independent entity with its own governance structure. > > 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. > > 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. > > As for next steps, I think we want to sort out these governance details > to where we are generally happy with them, then we > can make the formal request to the OpenStack TC to pull anchor and sail > a bit more independently. > > Feedback is more than welcome, > Clark > > [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130896.html Incorporating feedback I've produced this revised proposal: The OpenDev project will be governed by two entities. The first is the service coordinator. Responsibilities for the service coordinator are essentially the same of the existing Infra team PTL. They coordinate work of contributors and act as a tie breaker when clear consensus isn't found. The service coordinator is elected every 6 months. The nominee pool and electorate are individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the last 12 months. The second is an advisory board made up of representatives from OpenDev's user base of projects and organizations that contribute compute resources. This advisory board provides a formal location for both our users and contributing orgs to express their needs to the OpenDev project. This creates a clear contact point for feedback on priorities and direction. Their input will help ensure that the OpenDev project is a good steward of the resources provided to it and that user needs are being addressed. Contributing orgs and user projects are not required to join the advisory board, but are encouraged to do so. Individuals on the board would be selected by their own constituency as that constituency feels is appropriate. The advisory board will also serve as a point of contact for the OpenDev project when making changes that may be disruptive. The intent is to create bidirectional communication between OpenDev and the advisory board. How does this look? Clark ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
Clark Boylan wrote: [...] The OpenDev project will be governed by two entities. The first is the service coordinator. Responsibilities for the service coordinator are essentially the same of the existing Infra team PTL. They coordinate work of contributors and act as a tie breaker when clear consensus isn't found. The service coordinator is elected every 6 months. The nominee pool and electorate are individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the last 12 months. The second is an advisory board made up of representatives from OpenDev's user base of projects and organizations that contribute compute resources. This advisory board provides a formal location for both our users and contributing orgs to express their needs to the OpenDev project. This creates a clear contact point for feedback on priorities and direction. Their input will help ensure that the OpenDev project is a good steward of the resources provided to it and that user needs are being addressed. Contributing orgs and user projects are not required to join the advisory board, but are encouraged to do so. Individuals on the board would be selected by their own constituency as that constituency feels is appropriate. The advisory board will also serve as a point of contact for the OpenDev project when making changes that may be disruptive. The intent is to create bidirectional communication between OpenDev and the advisory board. How does this look? Loving it. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:37 AM Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Clark Boylan wrote: > > [...] > > The OpenDev project will be governed by two entities. The first is the > > service coordinator. Responsibilities for the service coordinator are > > essentially the same of the existing Infra team PTL. They coordinate work > > of contributors and act as a tie breaker when clear consensus isn't found. > > > > The service coordinator is elected every 6 months. The nominee pool and > > electorate are individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the > > last 12 months. > > > > The second is an advisory board made up of representatives from OpenDev's > > user base of projects and organizations that contribute compute resources. > > This advisory board provides a formal location for both our users and > > contributing orgs to express their needs to the OpenDev project. This > > creates a clear contact point for feedback on priorities and direction. > > Their input will help ensure that the OpenDev project is a good steward of > > the resources provided to it and that user needs are being addressed. > > > > Contributing orgs and user projects are not required to join the advisory > > board, but are encouraged to do so. Individuals on the board would be > > selected by their own constituency as that constituency feels is > > appropriate. > > > > The advisory board will also serve as a point of contact for the OpenDev > > project when making changes that may be disruptive. The intent is to create > > bidirectional communication between OpenDev and the advisory board. > > > > How does this look? > > Loving it. LGTM too! :) > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > ___ > OpenStack-Infra mailing list > OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev Independence and Governance
On 2019-12-05 15:52:10 -0800 (-0800), Clark Boylan wrote: [...] > The OpenDev project will be governed by two entities. The first is > the service coordinator. Responsibilities for the service > coordinator are essentially the same of the existing Infra team > PTL. They coordinate work of contributors and act as a tie breaker > when clear consensus isn't found. > > The service coordinator is elected every 6 months. The nominee > pool and electorate are individuals that have contributed changes > to OpenDev in the last 12 months. > > The second is an advisory board made up of representatives from > OpenDev's user base of projects and organizations that contribute > compute resources. This advisory board provides a formal location > for both our users and contributing orgs to express their needs to > the OpenDev project. This creates a clear contact point for > feedback on priorities and direction. Their input will help ensure > that the OpenDev project is a good steward of the resources > provided to it and that user needs are being addressed. > > Contributing orgs and user projects are not required to join the > advisory board, but are encouraged to do so. Individuals on the > board would be selected by their own constituency as that > constituency feels is appropriate. > > The advisory board will also serve as a point of contact for the > OpenDev project when making changes that may be disruptive. The > intent is to create bidirectional communication between OpenDev > and the advisory board. > > How does this look? I'm not certain it's correct to say that the advisory board is an entity which governs OpenDev; it's a source of input into decisions made by the group and/or coordinator but it's not a decision-making authority. I'm also not sure it's an incorrect way to phrase it either: GCIDE definition #2 of "govern" does include "to influence" as a possible interpretation there. So it still might work, I'm just slightly worried about future misinterpretation of the intent behind that choice of word. Overall though, I think this is excellent and embodies the idea elegantly--thanks again--great stuff! -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
