On 04/22/2015 07:38 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:15:28PM -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: >>> Problem Statement: OpenStack is growing, the election tools we use for >>> gathering nominations and communicating status of nominations, the >>> current workflow can be found on this wikipage: >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Election_Officiating_Guidelines is >>> unable to be accessed by election officials and the electorate in a >>> clear way. The process we use for actually conducting the polls is fine. >>> We need to discuss and agree on a new workflow for posting >>> self-nominations and platforms for elections. >>> >>> Does anyone have input on tools that we might use to meet these >>> requirements for self nomination and platform management in elections? >>> Requirements: >>> * archivable >>> * public >>> * unable to be edited once posted >>> * clear differentiation between governed and ungoverned elections >>> * candidates can self-nominate >>> * low barrier to entry for tools, candidates shouldn't be restricted due >>> to lack of knowledge of tools >> >> Well, doesn't the ML actually meet all of these requirements, except for >> having >> the distinction between governed and ungoverned elections. Maybe we should >> just >> build some tooling that watches the ML for posts with a certain subject (like >> what you and the other election officials are currently manually enforcing) >> and >> check whether the project election is governed or not, updates a wiki, etc. I >> don't think a little bot to do that would be that difficult to write. >> (although >> I could be easily overlooking something) >> > > I brought this up on IRC earlier today, but I figured I should post it to the > ML > too just in case people missed it in the scrollback. I wrote a bit of code to > show > how I thought the ML could still be used to do this: > > https://github.com/mtreinish/electionbot > > I haven't actually tried to run anything in the repo yet, it's just a concept > at > this point. But, I wanted to share it before I put too much effort into it to > get some feedback on the approach. > > -Matt Treinish >
Thanks Matt for bootstrapping that works... It seems you've nailed pretty much all the ins and outs of election officials works, however I have concern about going full automation. Having humans to actually review the process before sending approval mails still sounds like a good thing to have. Though having a good tool like electionbot for all the preliminary steps would be fantastic to have! For the check_commit method, here is the little script I used to check PTL atc status: https://gist.github.com/TristanCacqueray/bc0babe8261c42501830 For TC candidate, we rely on manual querying of: http://www.openstack.org/community/members/ On a side note, shouldn't we consider moving away from the ML ? Something like this workflow: * candidacy are submitted to a gerrit project * jenkins check if candidate is valid * election officials approve * jenkins post candidacy (wiki and/or ml) Finally there is the civs poll system to configure. Regards, Tristan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
