[OpenStack Foundation] Technical committee

Anne Gentle anne at openstack.org
Mon Feb 20 20:53:03 UTC 2012

Hi Thierry  -

If the stated goal is efficiency, is that in running the meetings or
in gathering consensus? Or perhaps you mean efficiency in setting up
the organization itself?

As a potential member of the TC based on the criteria for both the PTL
being on the C and the projects that have TLs, I'd like some time to
hear more about the stated efficiency gains before evaluating your
proposal further.


On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The current structure document is quite open on the Technical committee
> organization. Here are my proposals to keep it efficient... Please comment.
> = Technical committee =
> == Mission ==
> The Technical Committee (TC) is tasked with providing the technical
> leadership for the OpenStack project. It enforces OpenStack core
> projects ideals (Openness, Transparency, Commonality, Integration,
> Respect of release deadlines, Facilitation of downstream distribution
> [0]), decides on issues affecting multiple projects, and generally forms
> an ultimate appeals board for technical decisions.
> == Members ==
> The TC is composed of 9 elected members. You can cumulate other roles
> (Project technical lead, Foundation board member...) with a TC seat.
> Note that Project technical leads do not get appointed seats to the TC:
> they should run for election[1].
> == Meeting ==
> TC meetings happen publicly, weekly on IRC. The TC maintains an open
> agenda on the wiki. A TC meeting is called if anything is posted to that
> wiki at least one day before the meeting time. For a meeting to be
> actually held, at least two thirds of the members need to be present (6
> people). Non-members, in particular unelected PTLs or release manager,
> are more than welcome to participate to the meeting and voice their
> opinion, though they can't ultimately vote.
> == Motions ==
> Before being put to a vote, motions presented before the TC should be
> discussed publicly on the mailing-list[2] for a minimum of 5 days to
> give a chance to the wider community to express their opinion. Members
> can vote positively, negatively, or abstain. Decisions need more
> positive votes than negative votes, and a minimum of 3 positive votes.
> == Election ==
> The TC is renewed every 6 months using staggered elections: 5 seats are
> renewed every 6 months. People ranking 1st to 4th get elected for a
> one-year term. The 5th person gets elected for a 6-month term. People
> ranking after 6th are retained as potential substitute members (see
> "Revocation").
> == Voters ==
> Technical members of the Foundation, as determined by the Technical
> membership committee[3], are able to participate in this election.
> == Revocation ==
> TC members are expected to be available and participate to weekly
> meetings. If a particular TC member misses 3 of the last 5 called
> meetings, he should automatically be revoked. He would be replaced by
> the top substitute (person ranking 6th and after in previous election).
> Even when replacing someone elected for 1 year, the substitute inherits
> from the shortest term; the highest ranking elected person inherits from
> the potential longer term[4].
> == Initial election ==
> To initially populate the TC, all 9 seats are up for election. People
> ranking 1st to 4th get elected for one year. People ranking 5th to 9th
> get elected for 6 months[5].
> [0] From http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes
> [1] The idea is that we want to de-correlate the number of PTLs (and the
> relative importance of their projects) from the TC composition, to
> reduce committee bloat and be more fair. Influential PTLs from large
> projects should get elected anyway.
> [2] Could be the openstack ML or a specific TC ML. The idea is to avoid
> surprising the community with a decision, and avoid the usual kabbale
> critics.
> [3] More on this later.
> [4] Example: Fx got elected in Fall 2012, while Sx got elected in Spring
> 2013. Current board as F1, F2, F3, F4, S5 elected until Fall 2013, and
> S1, S2, S3, S4 elected until Spring 2014. S2 is a slacker is is revoked.
> S6 is called as a substitute. He should not get a longer term than S5
> though. So S5 inherits from the 1-year-long term and S6 from the
> 6-month-long term. Resulting board is: F1, F2, F3, F4, S6 elected until
> Fall 2013, and S1, S3, S4, S5 elected until Spring 2014.
> [5] We may want to re-align elections with release cycles. Example: If
> TC is created in July 2012, we may want to align elections with the next
> design summits, so the first term only be 2 months or 8 months.
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Release Manager, OpenStack
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

More information about the Foundation mailing list