On 16/03/2016 04:47, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:41:41PM +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>> I do not see the time frame for defining an electorate there.
>>
>> PTL seats are completely renewed every 6 months. A separate election is
>> run for
>> each project team. These elections ar
Tony Breeds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:28:14PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
The second issue is that we don't have any way to run an election on the
project, since we don't have a way to determine "contributors" (or rather,
the only voter and potential candidate under those rules would b
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:41:41PM +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> I do not see the time frame for defining an electorate there.
>
> PTL seats are completely renewed every 6 months. A separate election is
> run for
> each project team. These elections are collectively held 5 weeks prior
> to each
On 03/15/2016 11:18 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> Whoever will be the PTL, my single hope is that one day people will
> deploy OpenStack in production by using packaging built in OpenStack
> Infra.
+1
Thanks for your support. I don't really care having a PTL badge either.
I care for this project to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> The Fuel team, many occasional Debian contributors, the Kolla team, the
> Puppet OpenStack team, and of course myself, all want this project to
> get started on good tracks. It will happen, because of this need. Please
> give it more
On 03/15/2016 09:35 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 15/03/2016 20:29, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Does the current PTL not have the ability to propose extra-atc's for
> this reason?
>
> Would a solution be for zigo to propose the people active in
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-
On 15/03/2016 21:09, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:35:23PM +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>
>> Does the current PTL not have the ability to propose extra-atc's for
>> this reason?
>>
>> Would a solution be for zigo to propose the people active in
>> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/ope
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:35:23PM +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> Does the current PTL not have the ability to propose extra-atc's for
> this reason?
>
> Would a solution be for zigo to propose the people active in
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/
> to the govern
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:25:47PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 08:22 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
> > However, at the risk of sounding like a humorless automaton, we have a valid
> > candidate.
> > * Monty Taylor for Packaging-Deb PTL
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292690/
>
> T
On 2016-03-15 21:25:47 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> I know we have established governance rules. They exist for a reason.
> Though I hope everyone understand what happened after my explanation.
>
> I believe what you wanted to write is:
>
> "If we don't think first and follow the
On 03/15/2016 04:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 08:22 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>> However, at the risk of sounding like a humorless automaton, we have a valid
>> candidate.
>> * Monty Taylor for Packaging-Deb PTL
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292690/
>
> This started as a joke.
On 15/03/2016 20:29, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 08:22 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>> However, at the risk of sounding like a humorless automaton, we have a valid
>> candidate.
>> * Monty Taylor for Packaging-Deb PTL
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292690/
>
> This started as a joke. Pl
On 03/15/2016 08:22 PM, Tony Breeds wrote:
> However, at the risk of sounding like a humorless automaton, we have a valid
> candidate.
> * Monty Taylor for Packaging-Deb PTL https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292690/
This started as a joke. Please don't pick-up the joke, and make it a
serious propo
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:28:14PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The second issue is that we don't have any way to run an election on the
> project, since we don't have a way to determine "contributors" (or rather,
> the only voter and potential candidate under those rules would be Monty).
> You
Thomas Goirand wrote:
so it's not completely
crazy to kick it back to non-official status (especially now that it
doesn't trigger any repository rename).
Please don't. It took over 5 months to get it, and to be allowed to
create the initial Git repository under the OpenStack namespace, with
oth
On 03/15/2016 01:45 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/11/2016 12:45 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2016-03-10 22:05:00 + (+), Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
>>> Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
>>> contributions we can collect from git repos listed as proj
On 03/11/2016 12:45 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-03-10 22:05:00 + (+), Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
>> Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
>> contributions we can collect from git repos listed as project
>> deliverables. For these projects, how can th
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:11:01PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> >I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
> >probably also don't need a PTL?
>
> My take is that those teams do not need to be an official project team
> either. We now require some ac
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
probably also don't need a PTL?
My take is that those teams do not need to be an official project team
either. We now require some activity before approving project teams, but
packaging-deb passed before th
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:45:14PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> The electorate rolls for project-teams without any
> deliverables/repos end up being limited to the "extra-atc" entries
> for them. For example, the I18N team has done an excellent job of
> providing a curated list of active transla
On 03/10/2016 05:45 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Packaging-Deb is the only one I see in an especially strange state
at the moment: it has one existing repo (the rest are phantoms which
were never created) with two Gerrit changes, both owned by the
team's sole code contributor (based on our traditio
On 2016-03-10 22:05:00 + (+), Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
> Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
> contributions we can collect from git repos listed as project
> deliverables. For these projects, how can the election officials
> validate PTL candidacy and w
Projects such as Openstack UX, Packaging Deb and i18n do not have active
contributions we can collect from git repos listed as project
deliverables. For these projects, how can the election officials
validate PTL candidacy and what would be the electorate roll in case of
an election ?
Regards,
-Tr
23 matches
Mail list logo
