Open Stack

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<http://twitter.com/randybias>
LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:dug at us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org<mailto:thierry at openstack.org>>
Sent by: foundation-bounces at lists.openstack.org<mailto:foundation-bounces at lists.openstack.org>
07/04/2012 11:55 AM

To
foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation



_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120705/56c7eca4/attachment-0002.html>