On 9/9/16 11:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> [...] >> One interesting side-effect is that since the timing of the election >> period (for PTL and TC positions) is defined in the TC charter[3] >> relative to the *Summit*, it means that (unless we change this) we'll >> now run elections to renew PTL and TC positions in the middle of the >> cycle. Crazy, right ? That's what I first thought. But after discussing >> it with various people, this is not as crazy as it sounds. >> [...] > Oh. Wait. *Some* of the wording in the charter actually mentions "design > summit" -- since that's dissolved into two events, we kind of need to to > alter the wording there anyway. There is no status quo. > > So we'll have to discuss whether it's better to define our next PTL/TC > elections relative to the PTG (happening Feb 20-24, 2017) or to the > Summit (happening May 8-12, 2017), or to something completely different > (like the release date). > > I still think it's simpler to run relative to Summit (so that the PTLs > running for election in the coming days will have a normal 6-month > term), but the other solution would work too. > > Personally I care about having a point person to handle a release cycle > from the preparation stages (months before the PTG) to the post-release > stage (months after release). I don't care as much about exactly when > the name of the person holding the PTL title (may) change... since there
""" > is no perfect timing for that, you're always in the middle of something. > """ "no perfect timing..." this can go in as thought of the day and I will acknowledge +1000 to it. -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
