atom feed46 messages in org.openstack.lists.openstack-devRe: [openstack-dev] Motion on Technic...
FromSent OnAttachments
Thierry CarrezJan 15, 2013 7:52 am 
Mark McLoughlinJan 15, 2013 8:09 am 
Sean DagueJan 15, 2013 8:10 am 
Mark McLoughlinJan 15, 2013 8:10 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 15, 2013 8:36 am 
Russell BryantJan 15, 2013 8:45 am 
Kyle Mestery (kmestery)Jan 15, 2013 9:11 am 
Dolph MathewsJan 15, 2013 9:11 am 
Joe GordonJan 15, 2013 10:29 am 
Wojciech DecJan 15, 2013 10:38 am 
Anne GentleJan 15, 2013 11:08 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 15, 2013 11:46 am 
John GriffithJan 15, 2013 11:51 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 15, 2013 12:10 pm 
Thierry CarrezJan 24, 2013 2:28 am 
Mark McLoughlinJan 24, 2013 2:45 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 24, 2013 3:25 am 
Anne GentleJan 24, 2013 5:07 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 24, 2013 5:16 am 
John DickinsonJan 24, 2013 7:36 am 
Anne GentleJan 24, 2013 7:49 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 24, 2013 7:54 am 
John DickinsonJan 24, 2013 8:02 am 
Chuck ThierJan 24, 2013 8:13 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 24, 2013 8:43 am 
Doug HellmannJan 24, 2013 1:52 pm 
Thierry CarrezJan 25, 2013 5:02 am 
Doug HellmannJan 25, 2013 9:34 am 
John GriffithJan 25, 2013 9:40 am 
John DickinsonJan 25, 2013 12:09 pm 
Chuck ThierJan 25, 2013 12:11 pm 
Chuck ThierJan 25, 2013 12:14 pm 
Thierry CarrezJan 25, 2013 12:47 pm 
Doug HellmannJan 25, 2013 12:57 pm 
Doug HellmannJan 25, 2013 1:04 pm 
Thierry CarrezJan 25, 2013 3:27 pm 
Mark McLoughlinJan 26, 2013 9:28 am 
Monty TaylorJan 26, 2013 3:48 pm 
Thomas GoirandJan 27, 2013 8:29 am 
Thomas GoirandJan 27, 2013 8:48 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 28, 2013 12:55 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 28, 2013 1:25 am 
Anne GentleJan 28, 2013 11:05 am 
Gabriel HurleyJan 28, 2013 12:18 pm 
Thierry CarrezJan 29, 2013 1:53 am 
Thierry CarrezJan 29, 2013 2:23 am 
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] Motion on Technical Committee membership for Spring 2013 session
From:Thierry Carrez (thie@openstack.org)
Date:Jan 25, 2013 5:02:54 am
List:org.openstack.lists.openstack-dev

Chuck Thier wrote:

The reality is that with the proposed option, only members of the largest project(s) will get elected, and the view of the TC will continue to narrow around the needs of one world view. What the TC needs more, is a diverse set of opinions and views, and I believe the option proposed by Anne would provide a much better framework to support that.

I wish you had commented on the options earlier in the original thread, but that's a fair point. Diversity is a valid concern.

That's what option (4) was addressing: limit the committee growth while still ensuring representation from various projects.

Let me repeat what that option was:

"Limit the TC to 13 members, have them all directly-elected, *and* guarantee that a minimum of 8 PTLs end up in the committee"

It looks like this would address your concern: ensuring a minimum of diversity is present in the resulting committee, while proactively addressing the growth issue before it becomes a factor in accepting/rejecting new projects. It's also the smallest change from the current situation (we keep a 8PTL+5 committee).

It was my preferred option, but consensus seemed to be (at that point) that the added complexity in election setup was not compensated by clear benefits. But further discussion proved that diversity is a concern, so I'm happy to propose that option instead. I really would prefer general consensus on that change.

Anne, John, Doug, Chuck: Would that be agreeable to you ? If not, why not ?