Clark Boylan wrote:
[...]
In James Blair's winterscale email [0] he suggested that we create a governing
council made up of the OpenDev PTL and
a representative from each of the OpenStack Foundation's official projects that
currently consume OpenDev resources
(currently OpenStack itself, Airship, and Zuul). This suggestion creates two
levels of governance for the OpenDev team.
The first is the position of PTL for the OpenDev project. If we want to
continue to manage this position as we've managed it
for the OpenStack Infra team, then we can have elections for the position every
6 months. The nominee pool and electorate
would be individuals that have contributed changes to OpenDev in the last 12
months.
That sounds good. Only comment: "PTL" meaning "project team lead", it's
a bit of an OpenStack-ism which might not make perfect sense in the
Opendev context.
For the council, membership would be small, but I think demands on this group
would also be minimal. Ideally the OpenDev team
would be left to figure out technical details for services and this council
would be used as a check on service changes or
other behavioral updates that affect how OpenDev's users interact with the
system. Since this group would be starting with
an even number of individuals we may need to determine tie breaker requirements
upfront. Also, we may want to consider
if the "else" group of OpenDev users need a voice. Individuals representing
constituent projects should be nominated by
their project leadership.
I feel like this group should more of an advisory board (to get
feedback) than a governance council (to vote on motions on a one project
= one vote basis).
If you go for a governance structure, it creates a number of issues
imho, like tie breaking, or the fact that OpenStack's vote is arguably
more important than StarlingX's (being a pilot project) or Kata's (only
using very few of the Opendev services).
Choosing an advisory board style, there is no formal vote, just official
feedback on priorities and proposals, which can then be properly weighed
by the OpenDev lead and contributors. You can integrate additional seats
to represent "else" opendev users without having to over-think how their
voice compares to an OSF project voice.
I'm also wondering if the advisory board should not also include seats
for the infrastructure donors... Since we should definitely be making
sure Opendev goes in a direction that encourages them to continue
investing in (or increase) the resources that they give us.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
