Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
Jim Jagielski wrote: Why not STV? Many many many other FOSS orgs use it; it's well known and really does the job. Many many FOSS orgs also use Schulze [1]... That said I would agree that while Schulze is great to pick a single winner, it's lacking a bit when the vote is about picking multiple winners : if a given party owns 51% of the voters and they all vote the same, you'll end up with them 100% of the seats. This can be mitigated by using CIVS's experimental support for proportional representation[2], which is what I suggest we use in the draft. However that support is... well... experimental, so maybe STV is a better choice here. In particular in CIVS you have to numerically ponder the options, which is admittedly very confusing. Would you recommend an online platform that lets us run the election using STV ? Any other advantage to using STV ? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Use_of_the_Schulze_method [2] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/civs/proportional.html -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
On Jun 20, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: The current PPB had a discussion yesterday on the bylaws for the Foundation Technical Committee (TC), mainly around whether PTLs should get reserved seats on the TC. I would like to summarize the options and extend the discussion to the Foundation ML for wider input. My initial proposal [1] was to have a directly-elected committee (9 seats, all elected by technical contributors to OpenStack projects as a whole, in the same way each PTL is elected by the contributors of each project). Some members of the current PPB suggested that we should keep reserved seats for the core projects PTLs, and only directly elect 5 extra seats (TC = PTLs+5 seats, 11 seats for the original setup). The main argument against the directly-elected model is that you might run in a situation where a PTL of a smaller project does not get a vote on the TC, especially as the number of core projects grows. IMHO the potential drawbacks of the PTLs+5 model are: * Committee bloat as we grow our number of projects * Skewed election power for smaller projects members * Projects have different sizes but PTL votes carry the same weight * Have fear of dilution play a role when deciding new core inclusion * Have fear of bloat play a role when deciding new core inclusion * Have fear of bloat or dilution discourage further core project splits In the end, the result should not be very different: I expect most PTLs to be elected anyway since the voters are the same people that elected them in each project. And the use of proportional representation option in the Schulze algorithm specifically ensures that smaller groups get a fair representation and cannot be displaced by a majority of voters. Additionally, PTLs have to accept that some TC decisions will not go their way: having one vote doesn't magically ensure that all decisions will go your way, especially in a large committee. So I think the key question is whether the TC should be considered the college of the PTLs + a number of extra elected people, or whoever the technical contributors elect for the job, who may or may not also be PTLs. One thing to remember is that the Technical Committee will define what OpenStack is technically, which goes beyond just core projects. It influences library projects, gating projects, plug-ins etc. I much prefer the PTL+5 model. 1) the PTL is already an elected position 2) I think it would be foolish of us to create a structure where technical decisions that are supposed to be made across all the projects *could* be voted on and set by a different group of people than the leads of those projects. 3) I think your fear of bloat of the group is not a valid concern - the appointed positions dissipate, and the core projects growth has been minimal, mostly fragmenting of Nova into it's relevant constituent parts. The core of why I'm so opposed to a separately elected model for the technical committee is that it explicitly forms two groups that have overlapping accountability, but which may not be the same people. In the best of all worlds, this would be a non-issue, but it is the height of foolishness to create a structure with a division of groups and not a corresponding division of accountability. To me, this is suggesting that we create a ticking time bomb of technical division within the foundation from the very start. Thierry has made the argument that It likely would be all the PTLs, but that just begs of the question of why even set up a process that could fragment and induce confusion the decision process over technical decisions. - joe ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 12:18 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: [..] So I think the key question is whether the TC should be considered the college of the PTLs + a number of extra elected people, or whoever the technical contributors elect for the job, who may or may not also be PTLs. [..] Nice summary. Interested folks can also read the debate at last night's PPB meeting: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2012/openstack-meeting.2012-06-19-20.00.log.html I completely buy your argument that all seats should be elected. And I also expect that most PTLs would be elected. Put it this way - with the all seats are elected model, a voting contributor gets to weigh up the likely contribution to the committee of a given PTL versus other non-PTL candidates. I think that's healthy. +1 I originally thought, The PTLs are already elected, why vote again? but your arguments about the TC size as we add more projects convinced me it will be better to use a separate selection process. Some PTLs may not want to serve on the TC anyway, since it needs to have a more holistic view of OpenStack vs. the focus of managing a specific project. Related, I think the committee should be making more of an effort to encourage rough consensus in the community on the matters under their consideration. IMHO, committee members should be voting on is there a workable rough consensus on this matter? rather than voting based purely on their own personal opinion. Leaders always have a challenge balancing between recognizing group consensus and codifying it versus influencing the group to move in a direction it may not want, to but needs, to go. I don't see the TC having an easier time of this than anyone else in history. :-) If that was the case, any PTL who was constructively engaging in a debate and helping to reach a consensus would have no fear of being ignored. Agreed. The OpenStack community has better than average collaboration skills so I don't expect problems with the TC ignoring anyone making rational arguments. Doug ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote: I completely buy your argument that all seats should be elected. And I also expect that most PTLs would be elected. Put it this way - with the all seats are elected model, a voting contributor gets to weigh up the likely contribution to the committee of a given PTL versus other non-PTL candidates. I think that's healthy. +1 I originally thought, The PTLs are already elected, why vote again? but your arguments about the TC size as we add more projects convinced me it will be better to use a separate selection process. Some PTLs may not want to serve on the TC anyway, since it needs to have a more holistic view of OpenStack vs. the focus of managing a specific project. I also think that PTLs and other respected leaders of this community can affect a TC decision without necessarily formally voting at the end of the discussion. They have a lot of influence, and they can use it by giving their strong position on a subject -- the meetings are open to all and I expect PTLs to show up when something that directly affects them is discussed. Whether their influence also counts as a formal vote in the final TC tally is a bit of a separate question... which I'd rather let the foundation technical members decide. That is another good point. Doug ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
I'm glad someone from the PTL+5 camp spoke up! In my mind, the PTL is responsible for moving their individual OpenStack sub-project forward. The technical committee is responsible for OpenStack as a whole, and making sure that the individual projects are advancing OpenStack in the right direction. In other words, I see the PTLs' responsibilities as more day-to-day operations (code reviews, blueprints etc), whereas the Committee should be concerned with the technical vision and strategy (e.g. what overall features should be part of the N+2 release and do we need e.g. to add new projects to get there?) To use a startup analogy, I see the PTLs as Director of Engineering and the technical committee as CTO. Just as different people fill those roles in a company, I probably wouldn't vote the same way. Obviously some people would be good in both roles, but we shouldn't mandate that the two be linked. In particular, we shouldn't exclude someone from being a PTL because they wouldn't be a good CTO. There are also other issues with PTL+5 IMHO (e.g incentivizing the Balkanization of OpenStack), but at core I see the two roles as being very different. Justin --- Justin Santa Barbara Founder, FathomDB On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Joe Heck joe.h...@nebula.com wrote: I much prefer the PTL+5 model. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
It sounds like the heart of our differing views here is that there's a lack of clarity on what the technical committee is. That may because I'm not intimately involved in drafting the legal docs etc, but I think it's probably also due to a general lack of definition of those roles will be. In my mind I don't imagine the TC to be PTLs + user representatives; I see them as having responsibility for the (technical) bigger picture. I would definitely support a group that is focused on users, but I don't think that's the TC. I would venture that the hardest responsibility the TC will have is to say no to the PTLs. For example (and not to pick on you, just that gmail is helpfully suggesting it): does v3 of the OpenStack Identity API advance OpenStack enough to justify the resource requirements on downstream projects? Can we make changes to minimize the impact on everyone else, while still letting Keystone advance? Do the changes go far enough, or do we want to minimize long-term pain by adding more to the API now, rather than requiring a v4 in 12 months time? Should we defer a significant change until the next release, even if it is better for that one project to include it now? So I _want_ a division between the TC the PTLs, that reflects their different responsibilities. There will be arguments, but hopefully they will be constructive arguments like this one. In other words, we should expect healthy disagreement; it is a failure in my mind if we build a second group comprised merely of yes-men for the existing groups. Justin --- Justin Santa Barbara Founder, FathomDB On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Joe Heck joe.h...@nebula.com wrote: On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: In my mind, the PTL is responsible for moving their individual OpenStack sub-project forward. The technical committee is responsible for OpenStack as a whole, and making sure that the individual projects are advancing OpenStack in the right direction. In other words, I see the PTLs' responsibilities as more day-to-day operations (code reviews, blueprints etc), whereas the Committee should be concerned with the technical vision and strategy (e.g. what overall features should be part of the N+2 release and do we need e.g. to add new projects to get there?) To use a startup analogy, I see the PTLs as Director of Engineering and the technical committee as CTO. Just as different people fill those roles in a company, I probably wouldn't vote the same way. Obviously some people would be good in both roles, but we shouldn't mandate that the two be linked. In particular, we shouldn't exclude someone from being a PTL because they wouldn't be a good CTO. That sounds great, but the reality is that all of these projects today are evolving actively with each other, and very little is done in isolation. The assumption that anything other than basic project management could be done effectively in isolation is a misnomer. The PTLs today as a group are doing the duties you are ascribing to the technical committee. Where we are lacking in that operation is more getting more of a voice of people using the product in that same group. This is exactly why I think we should expand on the PTL set of people with additional elected positions from the community to fill out that need. Creating a separate group will simple introduce confusion and frustration when these groups diverge. Having a separate group asserting what others *should* do is fine in a company, but a recipe for disaster in an open source organization. As you're very aware, If you want something done, come with the code. Making a means of having separate groups in this respect is pre-seeding that division as soon as one of the PTLs *is not* elected to the technical committee. Why on earth would we want to set ourselves up for failure in that way? -joe ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
Fascinating. The tension between community driven and committee driven technical direction, it seems. Justin, I would have been way more comfortable had your example been more vision and architecture focused instead of consequence-control focused. I could see the role of the TC as bringing a perspective on highest value road-mapping across the projects and assisting in aligning decisioning to that. I can see it as a group that makes smart decisions on the boundary between core and satellite projects. I can see it as a driver for encouraging integrations with other open source ecosystems. But, in trademarked Jan form, if you think you can add a control function, you're likely off your chum. (pardon my use of that obscure colloquialism). After all, Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses! Not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! Less playfully, however, there is no question that a collaboration the size of OpenStack could benefit from vision and architecture perspective outside of the individual projects involved. That said, the intersection of such strategic and visionary thinking requires integration with (instead of management or separate direction of) the leadership of the projects. Creating this integration oriented approach rather than an implicitly confrontational approach is, I believe, Mr Heck's fine intent. Joe you may publicly lambast me and my perspective if I am off target here. Providing additional color, IMNSHOYBNI, an integrated approach will go a long way in keeping the community from telling the TC to fork off... which is better for the entire effort and certainly for us customers. Discuss. Jan On Jun 22, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Justin Santa Barbara jus...@fathomdb.com wrote: It sounds like the heart of our differing views here is that there's a lack of clarity on what the technical committee is. That may because I'm not intimately involved in drafting the legal docs etc, but I think it's probably also due to a general lack of definition of those roles will be. In my mind I don't imagine the TC to be PTLs + user representatives; I see them as having responsibility for the (technical) bigger picture. I would definitely support a group that is focused on users, but I don't think that's the TC. I would venture that the hardest responsibility the TC will have is to say no to the PTLs. For example (and not to pick on you, just that gmail is helpfully suggesting it): does v3 of the OpenStack Identity API advance OpenStack enough to justify the resource requirements on downstream projects? Can we make changes to minimize the impact on everyone else, while still letting Keystone advance? Do the changes go far enough, or do we want to minimize long-term pain by adding more to the API now, rather than requiring a v4 in 12 months time? Should we defer a significant change until the next release, even if it is better for that one project to include it now? So I _want_ a division between the TC the PTLs, that reflects their different responsibilities. There will be arguments, but hopefully they will be constructive arguments like this one. In other words, we should expect healthy disagreement; it is a failure in my mind if we build a second group comprised merely of yes-men for the existing groups. Justin --- Justin Santa Barbara Founder, FathomDB On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Joe Heck joe.h...@nebula.com wrote: On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: In my mind, the PTL is responsible for moving their individual OpenStack sub-project forward. The technical committee is responsible for OpenStack as a whole, and making sure that the individual projects are advancing OpenStack in the right direction. In other words, I see the PTLs' responsibilities as more day-to-day operations (code reviews, blueprints etc), whereas the Committee should be concerned with the technical vision and strategy (e.g. what overall features should be part of the N+2 release and do we need e.g. to add new projects to get there?) To use a startup analogy, I see the PTLs as Director of Engineering and the technical committee as CTO. Just as different people fill those roles in a company, I probably wouldn't vote the same way. Obviously some people would be good in both roles, but we shouldn't mandate that the two be linked. In particular, we shouldn't exclude someone from being a PTL because they wouldn't be a good CTO. That sounds great, but the reality is that all of these projects today are evolving actively with each other, and very little is done in isolation. The assumption that anything other than basic project management could be done effectively in isolation is a misnomer. The PTLs today as a group are doing the duties you are ascribing to the technical committee. Where we are lacking in that operation
Re: [Openstack-poc] [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: reserved seats for PTLs (or not)
Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote: I completely buy your argument that all seats should be elected. And I also expect that most PTLs would be elected. Put it this way - with the all seats are elected model, a voting contributor gets to weigh up the likely contribution to the committee of a given PTL versus other non-PTL candidates. I think that's healthy. +1 I originally thought, The PTLs are already elected, why vote again? but your arguments about the TC size as we add more projects convinced me it will be better to use a separate selection process. Some PTLs may not want to serve on the TC anyway, since it needs to have a more holistic view of OpenStack vs. the focus of managing a specific project. I also think that PTLs and other respected leaders of this community can affect a TC decision without necessarily formally voting at the end of the discussion. They have a lot of influence, and they can use it by giving their strong position on a subject -- the meetings are open to all and I expect PTLs to show up when something that directly affects them is discussed. Whether their influence also counts as a formal vote in the final TC tally is a bit of a separate question... which I'd rather let the foundation technical members decide. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
