Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-20 Thread Hayes, Graham 
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 are collectively held 5 weeks prior
>> to each
>> design summit, with nominations due 6 weeks prior to the summit and
>> elections
>> held open for no less than five business days.
>>
>> The way the rules are currently worded if the extra ATC patch merged
>> before the deadline for PTL nomination anyone in that patch would be
>> able to run.
>>
>> Where do we define the cut off date for electorate definition?
>
> [1] roughly defines it as "committed a change to a repository of a project 
> over
> the last two 6-month release cycles"

Actually the way that reads is that for mitaka APCs would be based on 
Kilo and Liberty - it should probably read

"committed a change to a repository of a project over the last 6-month 
release cycle and the current 6-month release cycle"

But, that is a digression.

> For the sake of generating the full APC roles we (the election officials) 
> define
> the exact range and communicate that[2].  At approximately the same time the
> governance repo is tagged and used for reference[3].  There are no extra-ATCs
> for Packaging-deb[4].

That is what I was looking for.

Is this recorded, or is there a list on rules that are passed on?

If there is no current place I would suggest that a section called
"Defining the Electorate" is added to the Charter, in the interests of
Openness - the way the charter is currently written does not indicate
that there is a cut off date during the cycle.


> That is how we define the electorate, changing that mid-election is not an 
> option.

Why not? A lot of elections (both for Governments and in NGOs) allow
for a "supplemental register" - to allow for this exact thing.

> Yours Tony.
> [1] 
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#voters-for-ptl-seats-apc
> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Elections_March_2016#Electorate
> [3] 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml?id=march-2016-elections
> [4] 
> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/march-2016-elections/reference/projects.yaml#L3147-L3282
>


__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-16 Thread Thierry Carrez 

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 be Monty).
You can't even apply to be the PTL :) That is obviously an exceptional case
and if I read Tristan's answer correctly, it will naturally end up in the
process where the TC ends up picking the PTL. It feels natural if you're the
only candidate that we would pick you, but that will likely have to wait
until the end of the election period.


I don't think we have the luxury of waiting.  There needs to be a small
amount of corrective action taken now.

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread the TC has the ability to appoint a PTL
should a project end up leaderless should that happen.

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/

In the interests of transparency I'll say this here.  Monty if you do *NOT*
have a genuine desire to lead the packaging-deb team please abandon that review
ASAP.

Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
  * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/


Like others have said, it's impossible to change election rules 
mid-flight. So we seem to have two ways out of this hole that would not 
break the established rules:


1/ Monty abandons his candidacy, so we have no valid candidate and the 
TC ends up picking the PTL (and may pick up Thomas, as he is the only 
volunteer)


2/ Monty does not abandon his candidacy, and automatically ends up as 
Packaging-deb PTL (that does not prevent Thomas from working on it, but 
Monty gets the final call on disputes)


Thomas: I'd advise you have a talk with Monty - his candidacy is valid 
unless he abandons it (and he has a pretty valid history and experience 
around debian packaging in openstack, so it's not as if he was the 
craziest candidate ever).


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Tony Breeds 
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
> design summit, with nominations due 6 weeks prior to the summit and 
> elections
> held open for no less than five business days.
> 
> The way the rules are currently worded if the extra ATC patch merged
> before the deadline for PTL nomination anyone in that patch would be 
> able to run.
> 
> Where do we define the cut off date for electorate definition?

[1] roughly defines it as "committed a change to a repository of a project over
the last two 6-month release cycles"

For the sake of generating the full APC roles we (the election officials) define
the exact range and communicate that[2].  At approximately the same time the
governance repo is tagged and used for reference[3].  There are no extra-ATCs
for Packaging-deb[4].

That is how we define the electorate, changing that mid-election is not an 
option.

Yours Tony.
[1] 
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#voters-for-ptl-seats-apc
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Elections_March_2016#Electorate
[3] 
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml?id=march-2016-elections
[4] 
https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/march-2016-elections/reference/projects.yaml#L3147-L3282


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
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 get going.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Emilien Macchi 
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 time.

I confirm the desire of seeing upstream packaging moving to OpenStack,
and so far Thomas efforts have been heroic to build so much packages
in Debian, and try to move it in OpenStack Infrastructure.

In Puppet OpenStack CI, we have been using Canonical UCA packaging
that is not close to what provides OpenStackt trunk, and has lower
testing coverage. It's breaking our CI quite often, even if Ubuntu
folks are very responsive and helpful with us (kudos to jamespage &
coreycb); I hope one day we'll have packaging tested & hosted by
OpenStack Infra, for both Debian & Fedora worlds.

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.
-- 
Emilien Macchi

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
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-tools.git/
> to the governance repo (including himself) and the TC approve it.
> 
> This would give an electorate, and give Zigo the right to run as PTL.

Just for the record, it's not only this repo, but all the 359
(currently, and counting...) Git repositories of:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/

this one came out only because it's the only one I tried to push on
upstream infra. I didn't care pushing more packaging Git repositories
until we have a way to build packages, which is currently not the case.

BTW, I'd like to come back to the history of this project. A year ago, I
just wanted to start things on stackforge. Then, during the Vancouver
summit, I was pushed by many to enter the big tent. Which very painfully
happened, after a lot of convolutions: it was finally approved in the
middle of August, when I thought it would take a week or 2. This
postponed getting the deb-openstack-pkg-tools project-config patch
approved until nearly the Tokyo summit. Then the DIB patch to get a
Debian image is on its way to take more than 3 months, while it probably
doesn't need to take that much and be so perfect.

I understand that it took so long probably due to my own shortcomings,
and lack of follow-up on each of the above steps. I admit that I was a
bit lost, and didn't know what I could do.

The difficulties faced to bootstrap this project are very far from the
packaging skills that we want to deploy on OpenStack infra, which could
explain why I got lost and unfocused (dragged on doing the actual
packaging into the official Debian distro also).

It is my hope that this thread wont start another layer of bureaucratic
obstacles which I will have difficulties to deal with again.

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 time.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Hayes, Graham 
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/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/
>> to the governance repo (including himself) and the TC approve it.
>
> What you say is essentially correct, but the time for such proposals has
> passed.  The electorate has been defined.
>
> Anita has provided links to the relevant documentation.
>
> Yours Tony.
>

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
design summit, with nominations due 6 weeks prior to the summit and 
elections
held open for no less than five business days.

The way the rules are currently worded if the extra ATC patch merged
before the deadline for PTL nomination anyone in that patch would be 
able to run.

Where do we define the cut off date for electorate definition?


- Graham

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Tony Breeds 
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 governance repo (including himself) and the TC approve it.

What you say is essentially correct, but the time for such proposals has
passed.  The electorate has been defined.

Anita has provided links to the relevant documentation.

Yours Tony.


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Tony Breeds 
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/
> 
> This started as a joke. Please don't pick-up the joke, and make it a
> serious proposal. This isn't funny anymore.

I did acknowledge that it is/was a joke.

> Obviously, Monty isn't interested (otherwise, he would have help with
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264726/, which he didn't despite his
> generous offer to do so in Tokyo but he had other priorities).
> 
> Also again, please have a look at the openstack-pkg-tools Git history here:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/
> 
> There's at least 3 commits a week on this repository.
> 
> Now, compare this to the single commit to add a .gitreview file from Monty:
> https://github.com/openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools/commits/debian/liberty
> 
> That's also a commit on the Liberty branch, and we've switched to
> debian/mitaka a long time ago.
> 
> > Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
> >  * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/
> 
> 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 rules without even trying to
> understand, we *WOULD* reject. But we are humans with brains, not
> machines, therefore, it's ok"

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I wrote what I intended to say.

> Because *you do* have a choice, don't you?

I, as an election official, can not choose to make exceptions on a project by
project basis.  I am acting within my understood parameters.  The election
officials saw a problem and raised it with the TC/community.  If the
established process is allowed to play out I think the result will be
reasonable.

Yours Tony.


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
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 rules without even trying to
> understand, we *WOULD* reject. But we are humans with brains, not
> machines, therefore, it's ok"
> 
> Because *you do* have a choice, don't you?

Strict process for elections is crucial, to avoid any impression of
impropriety or vote fixing which could invalidate the results.
Election officials aren't really at liberty to loosely interpret the
process; as volunteers their task is to ensure the established
process is followed and applied accurately and consistently. This
process defines another elected body which can rule on inconclusive
cases: the Technical Committee.
-- 
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Anita Kuno 
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. Please don't pick-up the joke, and make it a
> serious proposal. This isn't funny anymore.
> 
> Obviously, Monty isn't interested (otherwise, he would have help with
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264726/, which he didn't despite his
> generous offer to do so in Tokyo but he had other priorities).
> 
> Also again, please have a look at the openstack-pkg-tools Git history here:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/
> 
> There's at least 3 commits a week on this repository.
> 
> Now, compare this to the single commit to add a .gitreview file from Monty:
> https://github.com/openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools/commits/debian/liberty
> 
> That's also a commit on the Liberty branch, and we've switched to
> debian/mitaka a long time ago.
> 
>> Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
>>  * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/
> 
> 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 rules without even trying to
> understand, we *WOULD* reject. But we are humans with brains, not
> machines, therefore, it's ok"
> 
> Because *you do* have a choice, don't you?

ATC definition is in the bylaws: section 3:
http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/

Eligibility for PTL and the electorate is covered in the charter:
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/charter.rst#n106

And this resolution:
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/resolutions/20141128-elections-process-for-leaderless-programs.rst

Election officials administer elections according to the rules as outlined.

Thanks,
Anita.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> 
> 
> __
> 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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Hayes, Graham 
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. Please don't pick-up the joke, and make it a
> serious proposal. This isn't funny anymore.
>
> Obviously, Monty isn't interested (otherwise, he would have help with
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264726/, which he didn't despite his
> generous offer to do so in Tokyo but he had other priorities).
>
> Also again, please have a look at the openstack-pkg-tools Git history here:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/
>
> There's at least 3 commits a week on this repository.
>
> Now, compare this to the single commit to add a .gitreview file from Monty:
> https://github.com/openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools/commits/debian/liberty
>
> That's also a commit on the Liberty branch, and we've switched to
> debian/mitaka a long time ago.
>
>> Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
>>   * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/
>
> 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 rules without even trying to
> understand, we *WOULD* reject. But we are humans with brains, not
> machines, therefore, it's ok"
>
> Because *you do* have a choice, don't you?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
>
> __
> 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
>

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 governance repo (including himself) and the TC approve it.

This would give an electorate, and give Zigo the right to run as PTL.

I know the timescales would be short - but it might be workable.

- Graham

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
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 proposal. This isn't funny anymore.

Obviously, Monty isn't interested (otherwise, he would have help with
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264726/, which he didn't despite his
generous offer to do so in Tokyo but he had other priorities).

Also again, please have a look at the openstack-pkg-tools Git history here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-pkg-tools.git/

There's at least 3 commits a week on this repository.

Now, compare this to the single commit to add a .gitreview file from Monty:
https://github.com/openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools/commits/debian/liberty

That's also a commit on the Liberty branch, and we've switched to
debian/mitaka a long time ago.

> Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
>  * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/

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 rules without even trying to
understand, we *WOULD* reject. But we are humans with brains, not
machines, therefore, it's ok"

Because *you do* have a choice, don't you?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Tony Breeds 
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 can't even apply to be the PTL :) That is obviously an exceptional case
> and if I read Tristan's answer correctly, it will naturally end up in the
> process where the TC ends up picking the PTL. It feels natural if you're the
> only candidate that we would pick you, but that will likely have to wait
> until the end of the election period.

I don't think we have the luxury of waiting.  There needs to be a small
amount of corrective action taken now.

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread the TC has the ability to appoint a PTL
should a project end up leaderless should that happen.

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/

In the interests of transparency I'll say this here.  Monty if you do *NOT*
have a genuine desire to lead the packaging-deb team please abandon that review
ASAP.

Also by the rules I feel like we have no choice but to reject
 * Adding Packaging-Deb/Thomas_Goirand.txt 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/292885/


Yours Tony.


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Thierry Carrez 

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
others replying to the project-config code review that we should be
waiting on the TC's decision first. I don't want to have this happen
again, that'd be really too much of a loss of time.

It's taking a (really too) long time to be setup properly with the
Debian image and build infrastructure. I'm aware of it, and I hope we
can fix this during the Newton cycle. Though a lot of teams are waiting
on this project. Puppet OpenStack wants to gate on what we'll be
producing, and so is Fuel. The plan is that MOS guys will also do more
work over there using Gerrit, if we have something usable.

Please allow us to make it happen.


We have two separate issues here. The first one is that we added a 
requirement that official project teams need to be active for some time 
before they are considered for addition. We rejected a number of 
projects (including Kosmos and the Juju charms) based on that new 
requirement. The packaging-deb team was approved before that new 
requirement was added, but that doesn't mean it can just ignore it (as 
otherwise that would be unfair to the teams we rejected).


You make a good point that the team is active but that activity can't 
translate to commits yet -- if anyone proposes the removal of 
packaging-deb due to failing to meet the activity requirement, I expect 
we'll come back to that discussion. But nobody did yet, so it's not an 
immediate issue.



I hope that everyone understands the situation, and I hope that the
proposal to have Monty hijacking the project will remain a joke.

Oh, and if it wasn't clear: I'm again proposing myself as a PTL for the
project, since I don't think anyone else will want to stand.


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 can't even apply to be the PTL :) That is obviously an 
exceptional case and if I read Tristan's answer correctly, it will 
naturally end up in the process where the TC ends up picking the PTL. It 
feels natural if you're the only candidate that we would pick you, but 
that will likely have to wait until the end of the election period.


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Tristan Cacqueray 
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 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 ?
>>
>> 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 translators, rendered at:
>>
>> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs
>>
>> I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
>> probably also don't need a PTL?
>>
>> 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 traditional process of
>> enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
>> new de facto PTL-ship!
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools
>>
>> Obviously, we'll need the TC to step in on unusual corner cases with
>> inactive/newly-minted teams, such as this one.
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> First, I'm surprised that nobody got in touch with me directly about
> this first, before this thread happens. But never mind, I'll explain
> what happened here.
> 
> tl;dr:
> The project can still be considered at the same state as it was 6 months
> ago. Ie: it's not started yet on OpenStack infra, but alive and working
> outside of it. The reason is simple: we still don't have a Debian image
> to work with within OpenStack infra, and even less the necessary tooling
> to build packages. I hope this will change in Newton, so please leave
> the project as it is.
> 

Thomas, if the TC and Monty agrees to give "Packaging Deb" project
another cycle to bootstrap, then what you proposed sounds fair and we
should keep the project as it is.

Note that we need an explicit approval since the current state basically
prevent the next PTL to be elected by the community.

Regards,
-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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-15 Thread Thomas Goirand 
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 the election officials
>> validate PTL candidacy and what would be the electorate roll in case of
>> an election ?
> 
> 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 translators, rendered at:
> 
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs
> 
> I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
> probably also don't need a PTL?
> 
> 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 traditional process of
> enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
> new de facto PTL-ship!
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools
> 
> Obviously, we'll need the TC to step in on unusual corner cases with
> inactive/newly-minted teams, such as this one.

Hi there!

First, I'm surprised that nobody got in touch with me directly about
this first, before this thread happens. But never mind, I'll explain
what happened here.

tl;dr:
The project can still be considered at the same state as it was 6 months
ago. Ie: it's not started yet on OpenStack infra, but alive and working
outside of it. The reason is simple: we still don't have a Debian image
to work with within OpenStack infra, and even less the necessary tooling
to build packages. I hope this will change in Newton, so please leave
the project as it is.

Longer version:

To build packages on Debian, we need a Debian image to work with on
OpenStack infra. I've been told to do it on the Ubuntu image, but I
don't think that's viable, as I also run tempest on it to validate the
packaging, and that runs on top of Debian (I haven't tested it on
Ubuntu). I don't mind to *also* work on it on Ubuntu, but my priority
and motivation here is Debian mostly.

What's going on with the Debian image:
==
After Tokyo, I've been told by a few persons from infra, that I'd get
help. This help never came, so I started a CR to add the Debian image.
As I didn't know well enough the OpenStack infra and DIB, it wasn't done
well, and Igor Belikov took it over.

The review which is currently stuck is that one:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/264726/

It was supposed to be waiting on that one:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211859/

It's been nearly 3 months now that we're still stuck there.

Though Greg appeared to be busy (personal reasons), and couldn't work on
#211859, recently, Igor Belikov (who kindly took over #264726 which I
couldn't do myself) wrote that, thanks to a commit from Monty in DIB, we
could get rid of the #211859 depends. I'm still waiting on Igor to
un-depend #211859, so we can get going. Hopefully, we'll get the Debian
image to work before the Austin summit.

The plan for the future:

Once we finally get a Debian image, then we'll be able to add jobs to
actually build packages. Most of the scripting is already written and
used in that Jenkins which we're using, so it shouldn't be too hard to
figure out. Once I get the idea on how to hook the build scripts, it
should be a lot more easy for me to write it. At least a lot more easy
than the DIB elements.

And then store the resulting artifacts somewhere on infra, so that other
packages can (build-)depends on them. There, I'll need also some help
from the infra team, to see how this can be done.

As you see, all of the issues aren't on the packaging itself, but just
on understanding how infra works, and how to be setup.

Where's the commits?

Because there's nothing to test the commits against (ie: packages aren't
even built in upstream infra), then it makes very little sense to push
changes to the OpenStack gerrit. Instead, all has been done as we used
to, within the git on alioth.debian.org. Once a commit is pushed, it
triggers a package build (in both Jessie and Trusty) in the Jenkins
servers sponsored by Mirantis, with the result published on IRC (in
#debian-openstack-commits on OFTC). That's exactly what we hoped to get
away from, though this continues to work, and that's the only thing
we've got. And there, I understand everything, and have root access on
the servers.

If you consider git commit statistics there, then it's FAR from being
zero commits. There's in fact commits every day on it. If we want to
gather stats there, then that's a very good starting point.

As

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-14 Thread Tony Breeds 
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 activity before approving project teams, but
> packaging-deb passed before that requirement. It was approved 7 months ago
> and still no sign of activity, so it's not completely crazy to kick it back
> to non-official status (especially now that it doesn't trigger any
> repository rename).

I think that revisiting packaging-deb's status is a reasonable thing to do.
Having said that I do have some concerns with making that decision now that
the Newton PTL elections have begun.

I suppose if we follow the letter of the constitution:
 1. Only Monty can be PTL, assuming he doesn't nominate.
 2. There will be no candidates and it will fall on the TC to select a PTL[1]
who's first and probably only action would be to remove the project's
official status.

Which is probably the best outcome.

Yours Tony.

[1] 
http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20141128-elections-process-for-leaderless-programs.html


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-12 Thread Thierry Carrez 

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 that requirement. It was approved 7 months 
ago and still no sign of activity, so it's not completely crazy to kick 
it back to non-official status (especially now that it doesn't trigger 
any repository rename).


I'll ask Monty the new PTL about his plans there :)

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-10 Thread Tony Breeds 
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 translators, rendered at:
> 
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs

Ah thank you for the clear and detailed reply.  We'll update the election
tooling to handle this case fro UX and I18N.
 
> I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
> probably also don't need a PTL?
> 
> 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 traditional process of
> enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
> new de facto PTL-ship!

:D

Yours Tony.


signature.asc
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-10 Thread Monty Taylor 

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 traditional process of
enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
new de facto PTL-ship!

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools


I, for one, welcome my new self overlord.


__
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] [tc] Question about electorate for project without gerrit contribution

2016-03-10 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
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 what would be the electorate roll in case of
> an election ?

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 translators, rendered at:

http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/i18n.html#extra-atcs

I guess for teams with no deliverables *and* no extra ATCs, they
probably also don't need a PTL?

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 traditional process of
enumerating Gerrit change owners)... Congratulations, Monty, on your
new de facto PTL-ship!

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/deb-openstack-pkg-tools

Obviously, we'll need the TC to step in on unusual corner cases with
inactive/newly-minted teams, such as this one.
-- 
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