On 08/25/2014 12:30 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Zane Bitter wrote:
>> On 22/08/14 12:45, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>> Oh sure, but that's not just the PTL's job. That's everyone's job. Don't
>> you think?
>> I did that before I was the PTL and will continue to do it after I'm no
>> longer the PTL. And if anyone in the (especially) the core or wider Heat
>> team sees an opportunity to step in and moderate a disagreement I
>> certainly expect them to take it and not wait for me to step in.
>> I'm not calling for no leadership here - I'm calling for leadership from
>> _everyone_, not just from one person who holds a particular role.
> I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't see having a
> PTL as preventing that moderation and leadership from everyone. I really
> see it as a safety valve in case things ever go badly wrong. I prefer
> that safety valve to be built into the project leadership, rather than
> at the TC level.
> Could you explain how having a PTL is preventing that "leadership from
> everyone" ? Did it prevent it in Heat ? Did having the PTL safety valve
> hurt you ?

I'd like to see projects leadership as federated as possible. I think
PTLs are actually responsible for spreading leadership throughout the team.

>From my point of view, and this is a very personal point of view, PTLs
should worry for making the team grow as a team and as individuals.
Spreading the responsibilities and making everyone part of the decision
making process will help the team to mature and it'll also encourage
members of that team to send their candidacy for future elections.

This is why I think the Czar's (or whatever it'll be called) idea is
important. There may be lots of volunteers or none. However, it's
important to encourage people to participate and I believe this is also
part of the PTLs responsibility.

People could argue saying that we don't need a PTL to do that, everyone
in the community should help with encouraging others and I would
certainly agree with that too.

Probably, the issue here is not about having leaders but about
encouraging people to lead and volunteer as much as they can without
burning out. Thing is, what's the easiest way to get there without
slowing down development or hurting existing projects?

For example: I've heard folks saying: "The project is in this state
because the PTL X, Y and Z" This is wrong, the project is in that state
because the *whole* team took it there or because no one cares. What I'm
trying to say is that we need to change the way we talk/think about PTLs.


> I'm open to the alternative solution (which would be for programs which
> are not interested in having a PTL to just not have one). But then if
> things go badly wrong, you require the TC to step in with threats of
> removal of OpenStack and/or to force an election/vote in the middle of
> the crisis. I'm really failing to see how that would result, in those
> hypothetical crisis scenarios, in a better outcome.

Flavio Percoco

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to