On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote:

Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> Making our multiple projects converge onto consolidated and >> well-accepted APIs is a bit painful work, but it is a prerequisite to >> turning openstack-common into a proper library (or set of libraries). >> >> I'd say the whole thing suffers from not having a proper >> team/leader/coordinator dedicated to it: relying on existing, >> overstretched PTLs to lead that effort might not be the fastest path. > > While I was on vacation, I read in the weekly newsletter: > > "It developed into a request for leadership for openstack-common" > > and was like "WTF do you call the work that e.g. I, Jason, Russell and > Doug have been doing?" > > But I see your point is a little different - you feel there should be an > elected/appointed "PTL without a PPB vote" or whatever to represent the > project. I guess that could help clarify things since it's what folks > are used to with other projects.

Right. So far we said that openstack-common was driven by "all the PTLs", but that didn't prove particularly fast and efficient. Having a clear face associated with it, someone specific taking the "lead" on this project, will, I think, help a bit in getting to the next step.

Sorry if this rekindles old arguments, but could someone summarize the reasons for an openstack-common "PTL" without voting rights? I would have defaulted to giving them a vote *especially* because the code in common is, well, common to all of the projects.