Mark McLoughlin wrote:

The only difference between a regular team lead and a "PTL" is the assignment of one seat on the Technical Committee. So the question is not whether openstack-common should have a formal lead, the question is whether the openstack-common lead should have an assigned seat on the future Technical Committee ("TC").

As you may know, I was advocating for a lean, directly-elected committee of 9 members, with no reserved seats. The current PPB (responsible for bootstrapping the TC) preferred another option: (elected) PTLs + 5 directly-elected members. My main opposition to that latter model was that it was difficult to separate between projects "worth an automatic seat" and projects "not worth an automatic seat", and that it would ultimately result in a bloated board as we continue to add new projects. With the all-directly-elected model we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

That said, I certainly think openstack-common is "worth" an automatic seat, and that with 13 members we'd not yet cross a critical bloat threshold. And Mark (or whoever else would get elected to common PTL) would certainly get elected in a direct election anyway. So I support that move, and will prepare a resolution to adjust the TC charter to accommodate this change and propose it at the next PPB meeting.

I just think that at some point in a not-so-distant future we'll have to reconsider the PTLs+5 setup to support further project growth while keeping the TC dedicated and efficient.

Regards,