Excerpts from Omer Anson's message of 2018-08-02 12:56:37 +0300: > Hi, > > I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I completely missed the nomination period. > Is it possible to send in a late nomination for Dragonflow?
At this point the TC is going to be looking for a volunteer, so if there is one please let us know. Doug > > Thanks, > Omer Anson. > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 11:59, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > > Tony Breeds wrote: > > > [...] > > > There are 8 projects without candidates, so according to this > > > resolution[1], the TC will have to decide how the following > > > projects will proceed: Dragonflow, Freezer, Loci, Packaging_Rpm, > > > RefStack, Searchlight, Trove and Winstackers. > > > > Here is my take on that... > > > > Packaging_Rpm has a late candidate (Dirk Mueller). We always have a few > > teams per cycle that miss the election call, that would fall under that. > > > > Trove had a volunteer (Dariusz Krol), but that person did not fill the > > requirements for candidates. Given that the previous PTL (Zhao Chao) > > plans to stay around to help onboarding the new contributors, I'd > > support appointing Dariusz. > > > > I suspect Freezer falls in the same bucket as Packaging_Rpm and we > > should get a candidate there. I would reach out to caoyuan see if they > > would be interested in steeping up. > > > > LOCI is also likely in the same bucket. However, given that it's a > > deployment project, if we can't get anyone to step up and guarantee some > > level of currentness, we should consider removing it from the "official" > > list. > > > > Dragonflow is a bit in the LOCI case. It feels like a miss too, but if > > it's not, given that it's an add-on project that runs within Neutron, I > > would consider removing it from the "official" list if we can't find > > anyone to step up. > > > > For Winstackers and Searchlight, those are low-activity teams (18 and 13 > > commits), which brings the question of PTL workload for feature-complete > > projects. > > > > Finally, RefStack: I feel like this should be wrapped into an > > Interoperability SIG, since that project team is not producing > > "OpenStack", but helping fostering OpenStack interoperability. Having > > separate groups (Interop WG, RefStack) sounds overkill anyway, and with > > the introduction of SIGs we have been recentering project teams on > > upstream code production. > > > > -- > > 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