On 2016-09-21 22:53:10 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote:
> On 21 September 2016 at 22:41, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> 
> > wrote:
> > > I privately received information that explains why the PTL was
> > > not on top of things during election weeks. With ~60 teams
> > > around there will always be one or two that miss and that we
> > > must check on. It /always/ is symptomatic of /some/
> > > disconnect. But here I'm not sure it passes the bar of
> > > "non-alignment with the community" that would make the
> > > Security team unfit to be an official OpenStack team...
> > 
> > I agree, and in times like this, it's best to use common sense
> > rather than trying to have a rule to fit everything into. In
> > this case, Rob and the security team have put forth an
> > explanation of what happened, I fail to see how removing them
> > after this does anything other than foster bad will. I would
> > vote to keep the security team around at this point.
> I feel bad quoting policy here... but we do have prior art for
> this... If we look at resolution, "2014-11-28 Process for
> Leaderless Programs"[0], we have policy for *exactly* this
> situation.. which should probably have been the first action
> rather than considering a new resolution.
> For reference:
>    1. Programs without a minimum of one eligible candidate are
>    identified to the Technical Committee by the Election
>    Officials, as soon as possible after the nomination period has
>    expired.
>    2. The Technical Committee can appoint a leader to any programs
>    in this situation, by mutual agreement of the Technical
>    Committee and the proposed appointee.

I'm not certain what "new resolution" you're referring to in this
case, as it seemed to me the TC was attempting to follow the
guidelines you've quoted. Of the four teams which lacked PTLs, one
was made unofficial, one had a suitable PTL volunteer confirmed by
the TC, and two were deferred for further discussion due to
insufficient information about their situations.

Note it says "CAN appoint a leader" [emphasis mine]. The situation
was discussed by the TC in their meeting yesterday[*], and
what was asked was whether in these specific cases they SHOULD do
this, or resolve it by freeing the teams in question to operate
outside TC authority (by making them unofficial from a governance
perspective). Both are valid options for the TC as our governing
body, and each option is perhaps more applicable to some of the
teams in this situation than others. For the teams where the outcome
was not already certain, and no representative of the team was
present at the meeting for discussion about who should be appointed
PTL, the chair agreed to start an ML thread proposing returning
those teams to an unofficial state to gauge whether that was an
acceptable outcome from the perspective of our community.

As far as I know, the TC is allowed to remove official status from
any team at any time. Until "2014-11-28 Process for Leaderless
Programs" was passed, removal was basically their only accepted
option for dealing with teams that lacked a PTL. That resolution
gave them the _additional_ option of appointing a PTL volunteer.

Jeremy Stanley

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to