On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 22/08/14 11:19, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Zane Bitter wrote: >> >>> On 22/08/14 08:33, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> >>>> We also >>>> still need someone to have the final say in case of deadlocked issues. >>>> >>> >>> -1 we really don't. >>> >> >> I know we disagree on that :) >> > > No problem, you and I work in different programs so we can both get our > way ;) > > > People say we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack for which the >>>> PTL ultimate power is needed, so we could get rid of them. I'd argue >>>> that the main reason we don't have that many deadlocks in OpenStack is >>>> precisely *because* we have a system to break them if they arise. >>>> >>> >>> s/that many/any/ IME and I think that threatening to break a deadlock by >>> fiat is just as bad as actually doing it. And by 'bad' I mean >>> community-poisoningly, trust-destroyingly bad. >>> >> >> I guess I've been active in too many dysfunctional free and open source >> software projects -- I put a very high value on the ability to make a >> final decision. Not being able to make a decision is about as >> community-poisoning, and also results in inability to make any >> significant change or decision. >> > > I'm all for getting a final decision, but a 'final' decision that has been > imposed from outside rather than internalised by the participants is... > rarely final. > The expectation of a PTL isn't to stomp around and make "final" decisions, it's to step in when necessary and help both sides find the best solution. To moderate. > > I have yet to see a deadlock in Heat that wasn't resolved by better > communication. Moderation == bettering communication. I'm under the impression that you and Thierry are agreeing here, just from opposite ends of the same spectrum. > > > That >>>> encourages everyone to find a lazy consensus. That part of the PTL job >>>> works. Let's fix the part that doesn't work (scaling/burnout). >>>> >>> >>> Let's allow projects to decide for themselves what works. Not every >>> project is the same. >>> >> >> The net effect of not having a PTL having the final call means the final >> call would reside at the Technical Committee level. I don't feel like >> the Technical Committee should have final say on a project-specific >> matter. It's way better that the local leader, chosen by all the >> contributors of THAT project every 6 months, makes that final decision. >> Or do you also want to get rid of the Technical Committee ? >> > > Haha, I don't want to get rid of the TC, but I agree that having them > stepping in to resolve technical disputes by fiat within projects is > strictly worse than having the PTL do it. I think the TC's role is to offer > guidance in the first instance, and if necessary say to a project "if you > can't find a way to productively work together like adults, we're going to > kick you out of OpenStack". I don't expect the latter power to ever be > needed. > > cheers, > Zane. > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev