Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Anne Gentle | Just Write Click annegen...@justwriteclick.com wrote: I understand the workflow to be necessary due to the scale at which we're governing now. With over 40 PTL positions plus the six TC spots rotating, I sense we need to adopt tooling that ensures every project gets equivalent, trackable, audit-able, process-oriented support. +1 -- Ed Leafe signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/22/2015 04:35 PM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote: +1 To what Joshua said. I would also like to understand what is the goal we are trying to accomplish by moving this to a repo and submitting a CR and what does this solve or improve on the current way we are doing things? The point when I proposed this workflow last release cycle was to make the election officials job possible to complete with certainty all candidates had been acknowledged rather than lost in the noise while still being able to do the other daily activities the election officials have to accomplish while being election officials. Noise on the mailing list? Wasn't a concern for me then and isn't now, as an interested observer. Making sure the officials can have confidence in their work? Very important. I understand the workflow to be necessary due to the scale at which we're governing now. With over 40 PTL positions plus the six TC spots rotating, I sense we need to adopt tooling that ensures every project gets equivalent, trackable, audit-able, process-oriented support. Anne Thanks, Anita. Will it reduce noise? marginally (IMHO). Maish On 08/22/15 06:02, Joshua Hesketh wrote: I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the nomination confirmed type emails. While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could automate that first announcement email still. Just a thought anyway. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info mailto:ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Anne Gentle Rackspace Principal Engineer www.justwriteclick.com__ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 08/24/2015 01:37 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Tristan Cacqueray's message of 2015-08-21 14:20:00 +: Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. What would publish the candidacy to openstack-dev look like? Would that be an email from you publishging, for example, my candidacy and position statement for the TC election? Having you send that email seems a bit odd. How about if we ask candidates to email the list, and then submit their name and a link to that email post to the election repository? That keeps the majority of the discussion on the ML, while still ensuring that you've seen everyone's candidacy. Doug That would also works. Maybe the ML posts would then be optional and up to the candidate to publicize its candidacy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
Excerpts from Tristan Cacqueray's message of 2015-08-21 14:20:00 +: Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. What would publish the candidacy to openstack-dev look like? Would that be an email from you publishging, for example, my candidacy and position statement for the TC election? Having you send that email seems a bit odd. How about if we ask candidates to email the list, and then submit their name and a link to that email post to the election repository? That keeps the majority of the discussion on the ML, while still ensuring that you've seen everyone's candidacy. Doug Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. While this workflow doesn't tackle actual elections (using CIVS), it should already greatly help elections officials. Thought ? Tristan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
Excerpts from Tristan Cacqueray's message of 2015-08-24 13:59:32 +: On 08/24/2015 01:37 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Tristan Cacqueray's message of 2015-08-21 14:20:00 +: Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. What would publish the candidacy to openstack-dev look like? Would that be an email from you publishging, for example, my candidacy and position statement for the TC election? Having you send that email seems a bit odd. How about if we ask candidates to email the list, and then submit their name and a link to that email post to the election repository? That keeps the majority of the discussion on the ML, while still ensuring that you've seen everyone's candidacy. Doug That would also works. Maybe the ML posts would then be optional and up to the candidate to publicize its candidacy. Sure, we could make that part optional. I think it unlikely that any candidate would expect to be elected without sending an email like that, but they might. Doug __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 21/08/15 16:58 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tristan Cacqueray wrote: Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. While this workflow doesn't tackle actual elections (using CIVS), it should already greatly help elections officials. Sounds way more reliable (and less noisy) than (ab)using the ML to achieve the same result. +1 /me loves the above! +1 -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpPwzwELYfl6.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 08/22/2015 04:35 PM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote: +1 To what Joshua said. I would also like to understand what is the goal we are trying to accomplish by moving this to a repo and submitting a CR and what does this solve or improve on the current way we are doing things? The point when I proposed this workflow last release cycle was to make the election officials job possible to complete with certainty all candidates had been acknowledged rather than lost in the noise while still being able to do the other daily activities the election officials have to accomplish while being election officials. Noise on the mailing list? Wasn't a concern for me then and isn't now, as an interested observer. Making sure the officials can have confidence in their work? Very important. Thanks, Anita. Will it reduce noise? marginally (IMHO). Maish On 08/22/15 06:02, Joshua Hesketh wrote: I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the nomination confirmed type emails. While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could automate that first announcement email still. Just a thought anyway. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info mailto:ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
+1 To what Joshua said. I would also like to understand what is the goal we are trying to accomplish by moving this to a repo and submitting a CR and what does this solve or improve on the current way we are doing things? Will it reduce noise? marginally (IMHO). Maish On 08/22/15 06:02, Joshua Hesketh wrote: I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the nomination confirmed type emails. While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could automate that first announcement email still. Just a thought anyway. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info mailto:ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 08/21/2015 11:02 PM, Joshua Hesketh wrote: I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the nomination confirmed type emails. While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could automate that first announcement email still. Separate repo, separate mailing list, the thing I think we agree on is separation. I personally didn't want to get into the tussle that is having a separate mailing list so thought up separate repo as something that is different enough it didnt' have a past history of needing to drag in prior arguments. It is up to the officials but I definitely agree that tooling/workflow needs to be adjusted to address the increase in volume of candidates that will need to be tended to during the upcoming election cycle. Thanks, Anita. Just a thought anyway. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the nomination confirmed type emails. While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could automate that first announcement email still. Just a thought anyway. Cheers, Josh On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote: On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. While this workflow doesn't tackle actual elections (using CIVS), it should already greatly help elections officials. Thought ? Tristan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 2015-08-21 14:20:00 + (+), Tristan Cacqueray wrote: [...] * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) [...] Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. [...] Yep, the tricky bit here is in automating the confirmation. What are election officials normally doing to manually accomplish this? -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
Tristan Cacqueray wrote: Hello folks, as discussed previously, we'd like to improve elections workflow using gerrit: * A new repository to manage elections: openstack/election * Candidates submit their candidacy through a file as a CR, e.g.: sept-2015-ptl/project_name-candidate_name * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) * Elections officials +2 the review * Once merged, a post jobs could publish the candidacy to openstack-dev@ and to the wiki. Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. While this workflow doesn't tackle actual elections (using CIVS), it should already greatly help elections officials. Sounds way more reliable (and less noisy) than (ab)using the ML to achieve the same result. +1 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a manually-driven capacity in the meantime. Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's best for the response to come from current election officials. Thanks Jeremy, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [all] PTL/TC candidate workflow proposal for next elections
On 08/21/2015 11:27 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-21 14:20:00 + (+), Tristan Cacqueray wrote: [...] * A check job verifies if the candidate is valid (has ATC and contributor to the project) [...] Automated jobs would be great, but the first iteration could be managed using manual tools. [...] Yep, the tricky bit here is in automating the confirmation. What are election officials normally doing to manually accomplish this? Personally I would recommend that the election officials have verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the workflow is in place. Thanks, Anita. __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
