Open Stack

Boris Renski Jr. wrote:
> I am a little fuzzy on the revocation clause and subsequently convoluted
> system for electing a prospective substitute. Seems like a lot of
> complication is injected with this clause with little meaningful outcome. Do
> we know that non-participation in the meetings is likely to be such a
> recurring issue (has it been in the past)?
> 
> I assume that 95% of the time substitute will not end up having to
> substitute. Hence, are there any actionable responsibilities that this
> substitute will have while he/she remains in inactive substitute role and
> what is the chance that the substitute himself has become a non-viable
> replacement candidate by the time he/she ends up having to substitute? 
> 
> Perhaps, it would make sense to simplify and do away with the substitute and
> revocation deal altogether? Everyone on the committee is getting
> reconsidered every 6 to 12 months already; I think that is a powerful enough
> mechanism to keep everyone motivated and ivolved as is. The idea is to start
> with the simplest and most efficient structure. We can always make it more
> complicated later. 

You're probably right. I may not be worth the hassle of tracking
presence and the complex substitution mechanism... after all someone
missing a meeting also loses his influence on the decisions. My concern
would be that so many people would go missing that quorums can't be met
to take any decision. But it may just be so hypothetical that it's not
worth the resulting complexity.

What do other people think ? Would adding the ability to name a
temporary substitute be sufficient ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack