On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 11:01 -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > I don't see that as something the wider OpenStack community needs to > dictate. We have a heavyweight election process for PTLs once every > cycle because that used to be the process for electing the TC. Now that > it no longer serves this dual purpose, PTL elections have outlived their > usefulness. > > If projects want to have a designated tech lead, let them. If they want > to have the lead elected in a form of representative democracy, let > them. But there's no need to impose that process on every project. If > they want to rotate the tech lead every week instead of every 6 months, > why not let them? We'll soon see from experimentation which models work. > Let a thousand flowers bloom, &c.
I like the idea of projects being free to experiment with their governance rather than the TC mandating detailed governance models from above. But I also like the way Thierry is taking a trend we're seeing work out well across multiple projects, and generalizing it. If individual projects are to adopt explicit PTL duty delegation, then all the better if those projects adopt it in similar ways. i.e. this should turn out to be an optional "best practice model" that projects can choose to adopt, in much the way the *-specs repo idea took hold. Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev