Looks like we need to make it totally clear in our policy...
> So we assume that detailed architectural work will be relayed to
Component Leads
I don't agree with this statement, as it implies that _all_ architectural
work will be relayed to component leads.
PTL is fully responsible for technical
Which is actually contradictory and ambiguous and shows that PTL has less
power than CLs while CLs at the same time have less power than PTL. I think
this is the time when universe should collapse as we found that time-space
is contradicting laws of propositional calculus.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6
Hi
That’s right, but we made slight change here:
"Define architecture direction & review majority of design specs. Rely on
Component Leads and Core Reviewers"
So we assume that detailed architectural work will be relayed to Component Leads
> On 02 Oct 2015, at 10:12, Evgeniy L wrote:
>
> Hi
Hi Mike,
According to the description of the role, I wouldn't say that the role is
less architectural than
political, since PTL should review designs and resolve conflicts between
cores (which are
usually technical), PTL should also have strong skills in software
architecture, and understanding
of
> we may mix technical direction / tech debt roadmap and process,
political, and people management work of PTL.
sorry, of course I meant that we rather should NOT mix these things.
To make my email very short, I'd say PTL role is more political and
process-wise rather than architectural.
On Wed,
Vladimir,
we may mix technical direction / tech debt roadmap and process, political,
and people management work of PTL.
PTL definition in OpenStack [1] reflects many things which PTL becomes
responsible for. This applies to Fuel as well.
I'd like to reflect some things here which I'd expect PTL d
