Open Stack

One of the things that I'd like to avoid as the new foundation is formed
is inconsistency.  Whether this is in how each project is run/built/etc...
or in the rules that govern each layer of the entire foundation, I
think having consistency will be a good thing as it means the same set of
rules applies across all decisions and it makes the learning curve a lot
lower for newbies. It also means we don't need to repeat
those same rules for each layer - define it once and just reuse it.
(Or even better, just point to Robert's Rules as the base (with possibly
some minor tweaks) and be done with it.  :-)

For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having more power than
anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair.  In the current
foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more than one vote. 
That
to me is wrong.  At every layer in the foundation the rules should be very
simple:  someone makes a proposal, people vote and if it doesn't pass
the predetermined threshold then it fails.  A tie means it didn't pass.
Everyone is on equal footing.  Chairs, PTLs, etc... run the meetings but 
that's the extent of their 'special' powers.

So, applying this to projects and the TC, I'm not keen on saying that the
process the TC/projects follow is separate from the foundation by-laws.
Nor do I think they should be allowed to change their process in 
isolation.
IMO, the foundation by-laws should encompass both - its just a different
set of players.  Saying the TC could one day define their own rules is
kind of odd to me for a couple of reasons.  First, I would think the board
should have a HUGE say in this, and second this implies the TC could have
a totally different process than the rest of the foundation which will 
make
us look kind of silly.  If something like how we vote varies depending on
the layer of the foundation the first question people will ask is "why?" 
and
I doubt we'll have a good reason other than a different set of folks
picked the rules.

Having been part of many orgs like this in the past, I can say 
that keeping it as simple as possible usually makes things run much 
smoother
with less perception of politics playing a role or people becoming
disenfranchised.

And finally, I think getting this correct now will be a whole lot easier
than changing it later. 

-Doug

Jonathan Bryce <jonathan at openstack.org> wrote on 07/05/2012 03:25:48 PM:
> I think this is definitely something to watch over the long term. 
> When we started out, we didn't have anything like the Project 
> Technical Lead role. With the rapid growth in the size of the 
> codebase and the number of contributors, having a point of 
> coordination proved necessary, and I think most involved would agree
> that creating the PTL improved the communication and processes for 
> the projects. The PTL job is certainly not glamourous and I don't 
> think they wield it like a mini-dictator. The PTLs help out in many,
> many areas with cat-herding, summit planning, organization between 
> the various projects, and with helping to drive discussions and 
> decisions. They're also required to stand for election before every 
> release (every 6 months), allowing for those who might abuse the 
> position to be replaced fairly quickly. I think it would be a major 
> change to something that has been working for a number of releases 
> now and not necessarily beneficial at this late stage in the 
> organization process.
> 
> This part of the structure is separate from the corporate governance
> and can be adjusted by the technical community and the Technical 
> Committee going forward if needed. Keeping the role of the PTL in 
> place through the Foundation set up has been in the plans since the 
> first set of documents we published and that we've heard 
> overwhelming support for to date. When we've had discussions about 
> changes to the PTL role or the election cycle of PTLs, we've seen 
> the vast majority prefer to keep in place what has been working. 
> That said, the Technical Commitee will be empowered to explore the 
> types of changes suggested here, so from the perspective of forming 
> the Foundation (bylaws, etc) I think we are in good shape to move 
> forward as these discussions continue.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Randy Bias wrote:
> 
> I also agree.  I think this idea, in particular, is important for 
> the community to thrive.  PTLs being mini-dictators probably isn't 
> sustainable.  I'm not saying that's the case today.  I'm simply 
> reinforcing the ideas below.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> --Randy
> 
> Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
> +1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice] 
> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
> CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias
> 
> 

> 
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I tend to agree.
> 
> Also, FWIW, the tools that the ASF uses for voting (we use STV, the 
meeks
> method), are becoming their own ASF project, and thus will be
> available for anyone to use.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Doug Davis <dug at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> A PTL "has the final call over technical disputes within that
> project"... "if a given debate cannot be clearly resolved, the PTL can
> make the final call. ".
> I tend to prefer a more community based voting/decision making  system -
> e.g: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> And if no clear consensus is reached on a particular proposal then that
> means the status quo remains.
> While I understand why it may seem attractive to have someone formally
> guiding the project, I think that will happen naturally based on 
people's
> interest and desire for it to succeed.  Leaders tend not to need formal
> titles. Giving one person more power than any other seems to contradict
> the spirit of open-source IMO.
> 
> Now, choosing someone as cat-hearder to bring everyone together for a
> release is definitely a good idea, but even then its more like a "head
> nag" role.  They still don't have any more power than anyone else.  And
> that doesn't need a formal voting system in place - you just need 
someone
> to volunteer (or everyone else to take one step back  :-)
> 
> Additionally, I  think reducing the amount of bureaucracy in the
> organization (ie. reduce all of the rules who about who controls what, 
who
> is elected to what, etc) and going with more of an Apache "we're all in
> this together" approach will only attract more people.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> ________________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug at us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
> 
> Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> Sent by: foundation-bounces at lists.openstack.org
> 07/04/2012 11:55 AM
> 
> To
> foundation at lists.openstack.org
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical Committee: new draft
> 
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I just posted a new draft for the Technical Committee charter:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
> 
> Just added a new version that explicitly mentions what a PTL is and how
> PTL seats are elected, so that this can fully replace the current
> governance.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation