[OpenStack Foundation] Technical committee Technical committee

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Mon Feb 20 20:17:55 UTC 2012

Hi Jesse,

On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 11:32 -0800, Jesse Andrews wrote:
> Hi,
> Perhaps it would be useful to share the the problems / issues you are
> trying to improve.  My reading is that TC = PBB 2.0
>  * without appointed seats (PTLs or RAX appointed)
>  * attendance requirements

Same reading here, but also:

 * emphasis on wider discussion before TC level voting

> I'm particularly worried about the idea that PTLs aren't automatic.
> What does it mean to allow decisions to made by the TC that a project
> technical lead aren't inherently part of?

Good question - e.g. if the TC votes that all projects should adopt the
AwesomeDb library as a replacement for sqlalchemy and the PTL (and
perhaps $project-core) disagrees, what then?

I think the answer to that is that the TC is not so much responsible for
making a final call where there is two fundamentally opposing views, but
rather it is responsible for building a rough consensus. TC voting
should perhaps be about whether the TC think a rough consensus has been
reached on a given topic.

A PTL vehemently opposed to a given proposal is a signal that more work
is needed. If the PTL is on the TC and a majority of the TC members vote
against the PTL, that doesn't mean a consensus has been reached.

A PTL has a strong veto power irrespective of his ability to vote on the
TC. Also, $project-core members have somewhat of a veto power with the
ability to -2 a review.

IMHO, this is all very healthy. We don't want the TC to be a group of
individuals making far reaching decisions without building a rough
consensus between the main players.


More information about the Foundation mailing list