Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> It's certainly not a fun thing to do (trying to guide a > community of disjoint folks) and it likely comes with little > recognition when successful, but IMHO we surely need more of > this active technical leadership vs. blessing of projects; of > course the boundary between being a engaging lea

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> >> 1. *make a minor concession to proportionality* - while keeping the > >> focus on consensus, e.g. by adopting the proportional Condorcet > >> variant. > > > > It would be interesting to see the analysis again, but in the past this > > proved to not make much difference. > > For t

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

This, It's certainly not a fun thing to do (trying to guide a community of disjoint folks) and it likely comes with little recognition when successful, but IMHO we surely need more of this active technical leadership vs. blessing of projects; of course the boundary between being a engaging lead

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Zane Bitter wrote: > On 01/11/14 16:31, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> 1. *make a minor concession to proportionality* - while keeping the >> focus on consensus, e.g. by adopting the proportional Condorcet >> variant. > > It would be interesting to see the analysis again, but in the past this

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/11/14 12:09, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > 2.*weaken the continuity guarantee* - by un-staggering the terms, > > so that all seats are contested at each election. > >This is probably not feasible. Interesting, why do you think it wouldn't be feasible? I was under the impression that o

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Eoghan Glynn wrote: Believe it or not, the communication of what the TC is up to has actually improved significantly over the last cycle, with those regular TC Update posts from russellb, ttx, vishy & others: http://www.openstack.org/blog/tag/technical-committee That's gr

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 2014-11-11 09:15:44 -0500 (-0500), Eoghan Glynn wrote: [...] > The community engagement aspect I referred to up-thread was more > related to whether that communication channel is as bi-directional > as it could or should be. It's actually not _that_ hard to present a motion before the TC.

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > I think you missed the most important option I mentioned in the thread - > > for > > the TC to engage more with the community and take an active technical > > leadership role in the design of OpenStack as a whole. > > +1 > > I've been in this scene for about half a year now and the only >

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Zane Bitter wrote: I think you missed the most important option I mentioned in the thread - for the TC to engage more with the community and take an active technical leadership role in the design of OpenStack as a whole. +1 I've been in this scene for about half a year n

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > So, just to round out this thread, the key questions are: > > > > * whether a low & declining turnout is a real problem > > > > and, if so: > > > > * could this have been driven by a weakness in the voting model, > > and/or the perception of representative balance in the outcomes > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 01/11/14 16:31, Eoghan Glynn wrote: +1 to this, with a term limit. Notable that the Debian TC has been discussing term limits for months now, and since DebConf they seem to have gotten much closer to a concrete proposal[1] in the last week or so. Could be worth watching for ideas on how o

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/31/2014 05:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote: > On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member > of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame. > > However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been > governing OpenStack in t

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > So, just to round out this thread, the key questions are: > > > > * whether a low & declining turnout is a real problem > > I'd like to point out that there 580 'regular' contributors at the > moment[1], these are the authors of 95% of the OpenStack code. 506 total > number of voters. Tha

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 11/01/2014 04:31 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > So, just to round out this thread, the key questions are: > > * whether a low & declining turnout is a real problem I'd like to point out that there 580 'regular' contributors at the moment[1], these are the authors of 95% of the OpenStack code. 506

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > +1 to this, with a term limit. > > Notable that the Debian TC has been discussing term limits for > months now, and since DebConf they seem to have gotten much closer > to a concrete proposal[1] in the last week or so. Could be worth > watching for ideas on how our community might attempt to

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 2014-10-31 09:24:31 +1000 (+1000), Angus Salkeld wrote: > +1 to this, with a term limit. Notable that the Debian TC has been discussing term limits for months now, and since DebConf they seem to have gotten much closer to a concrete proposal[1] in the last week or so. Could be worth watching fo

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 10/31/2014 12:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote: >> On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member >> of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame. >> >> However, there are obviously some funda

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Excerpts from Matt Joyce's message of 2014-10-31 09:17:23 -0700: > On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member > of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame. > > However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been >

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/31/2014 12:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote: > On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member > of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame. > > However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been > governing OpenStack in

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame. However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been governing OpenStack in the past few releases. Very serious issues in the p

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/31/2014 08:29 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 10/30/2014 09:15 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: >> I was thinking after reading all this; besides modifying the number of >> required patches, perhaps we could try a blind election; candidate names >> are removed so ballots have to be cast based on the mer

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/31/2014 08:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: Another option: 3) People consider the lower choices on their list to be equivalent. I personally tend to vote in tiers (these 3 are top choices, these 3 are secondary choices, these 6 are third choices) and I don’t differe

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/30/2014 09:15 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: > I was thinking after reading all this; besides modifying the number of > required patches, perhaps we could try a blind election; candidate names > are removed so ballots have to be cast based on the merit of each > candidate's responses to the questions

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Another option: > > 3) People consider the lower choices on their list to be equivalent. I > personally tend to vote in tiers (these 3 are top choices, these 3 are > secondary choices, these 6 are third choices) and I don’t differentiate > individuals in the bottom t

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

I was thinking after reading all this; besides modifying the number of required patches, perhaps we could try a blind election; candidate names are removed so ballots have to be cast based on the merit of each candidate's responses to the questions and/or ideas - which I think effectively eliminate

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2014-10-30 04:16:48 -0700: > Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >>> I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, > >>> so I quickly ran the numbers myself. > > Haven't been able to run my analysis yet. I should be able to a few > weeks after

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > The low (and dropping) level of turnout is worrying, particularly in > > light of that analysis showing the proportion of drive-by contributors > > is relatively static, but it is always going to be hard to discern the > > motives of pe

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> The low (and dropping) level of turnout is worrying, particularly in > light of that analysis showing the proportion of drive-by contributors > is relatively static, but it is always going to be hard to discern the > motives of people who didn't vote from the single bit of data we have on > the

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Oct 30, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 30/10/14 06:22, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > activities and are no longer involved wit

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 30/10/14 06:22, Eoghan Glynn wrote: IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:11:59AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/30/2014 06:09 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > >>> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > >>> are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > >>> activities and are no longer

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > If we're serious about improving participation rates, then I think we > > should consider factors what would tend to drive interest levels and > > excitement around election time. My own suspicion is that open races > > where the outcome is in doubt are more likely to garner attention from > >

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/30/2014 06:09 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >>> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there >>> are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other >>> activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually >>> be quite interested to

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Monty Taylor wrote: > Different but related question (might be hard to calculate though): > > If we remove people who have only ever landed one patch from the > electorate, what do the turnout numbers look like? 2? 5? > > Do we have the ability to dig in slightly and find a natural definition > o

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Eoghan Glynn wrote: >>> I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, >>> so I quickly ran the numbers myself. Haven't been able to run my analysis yet. I should be able to a few weeks after summit :) In complement to the "partisan analysis" you ran, one interesting ana

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > > > be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > > be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 30/10/2014 11:22, Angus Salkeld wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eoghan Glynn > wrote: > > > > > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So > there > > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other >

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > > > > be quite int

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

How many of those cashed in their free pass? On 30 October 2014 21:54, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 10/30/2014 09:32 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> >> >> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there >> are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other >>

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/30/2014 09:32 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > be quite interested to see

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> >>> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > >>> are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > >>> activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > >>> be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who > >>> missed

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 10/30/2014 04:45 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2014-10-29 18:37:42 -0700: >> On 2014-10-29 18:27:48 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: >>> IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there >>> are likely a number of people listed who have move

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > > > be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who > > > missed

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2014-10-29 18:37:42 -0700: > On 2014-10-29 18:27:48 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > activities and are no longer

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Eoghan Glynn's message of 2014-10-29 16:37:42 -0700: > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC > el

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

On 2014-10-29 18:27:48 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually > be quite interested to see the turno

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Excerpts from Eoghan Glynn's message of 2014-10-29 16:37:42 -0700: > > > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, > > > so I quickly ran the numbers myself. > > > > > > Vote

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> > On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, > > so I quickly ran the numbers myself. > > > > Voter Turnout > > = > > > > The turnout rate continues to decline, in this ca

Re: [openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

> On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > Folks, > > I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, > so I quickly ran the numbers myself. > > Voter Turnout > = > > The turnout rate continues to decline, in this case from 29.7% to 26.7%. >

[openstack-dev] TC election by the numbers

Folks, I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC election, so I quickly ran the numbers myself. Voter Turnout = The turnout rate continues to decline, in this case from 29.7% to 26.7%. Here's how the participation rates have shaped up since the first TC2.0 elec