| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Close 2024.2 Election Results (TC/PTL) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/913854 | 00:01 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Change Linuxbridge to OVS in providernet setup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/894532 | 13:18 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/governance master: Add results from the 2024.2/Dalmatian election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912 | 14:42 |
| rosmaita | tc-members: please take a look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/913854 ... it looks like the currently constituted tc has some work to do | 15:04 |
| fungi | so the good news is that the published version of the foundation bylaws did finally get updated a week ago, and no longer has conflicting requirements compared with the currently published tc charter | 15:05 |
| JayF | rosmaita: I would suggest that you are still on the TC until that patch is merged | 15:06 |
| bauzas | fwiw I also left a comment about the diversity in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/913854 | 15:06 |
| rosmaita | JayF: yeah, i did not mean to exempt myself | 15:06 |
| fungi | the bad news is that 2/3 of the tc need to agree to waive the 50% affiliation limit or decide how to handle the results in order to keep the incoming tc within the limit | 15:06 |
| JayF | The straightforward solution is for one of the red hat affiliated candidates to step aside in favor of one of the one of the other candidates. | 15:06 |
| bauzas | I'm not very happy with the fact that we would waive the limit | 15:07 |
| JayF | I'll say this directly and a straightforwardly as I can: there's no situation in which I would vote plus one to such a modification to the charter | 15:07 |
| bauzas | I'd prefer the other solution | 15:07 |
| JayF | Or a temporary exemption for this elected TC | 15:07 |
| fungi | keep in mind that, as written, it wouldn't require a (further) modification to the charter | 15:07 |
| knikolla | i'd prefer not to waive the limit unless absolutely necessary. | 15:07 |
| knikolla | once you do it once, you do it always. | 15:08 |
| JayF | And in previous times when we discussed this possibility, it was due to a lack of willing candidates from outside of red hat | 15:08 |
| knikolla | ++ JayF | 15:08 |
| JayF | In order to wave now, we'd be accepting the fact that a majority of employees of a single company could maintain a supermajority on the TC forever | 15:08 |
| JayF | I'm not trying to imply that anyone has that intent, but we should be aware of unintended consequences | 15:09 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/governance master: Add results from the 2024.2/Dalmatian election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912 | 15:34 |
| frickler | iiuc recording the election results should be uncontroversial, it is the governance update ^^ that should get discussed/amended/rejected? | 15:38 |
| fungi | right | 15:39 |
| gmann | yeah, I just commented in election change. I do not think we need to hold the election change to merge as that is to publish the election result and how diversity thing needs to be handled that needs to be done in governance change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912. | 15:39 |
| frickler | slaweq: spotz[m]: gouthamr: dansmith: pinging you explicitly for feedback as you would belong to the affiliated circle | 15:40 |
| fungi | but that leaves an outstanding question of whether (for transparency and consistency) the election officials should send the usual conclusion announcement with results of the poll, and if so then whether the messaging needs to include further clarification | 15:40 |
| gmann | I think we need to hold the announcement for TC election conclusion | 15:41 |
| dansmith | frickler: for feedback on whether we merge the results? | 15:41 |
| frickler | dansmith: for feedback on whether for example you would be willing to give up your TC seat in order to not violate the diversity requirement | 15:41 |
| JayF | I think the data itself should be shared: these are the election results, but at the moment they are invalid for the TC until we pass a resolution with 2/3 majority or one of the red hat affiliated candidates steps aside | 15:41 |
| dansmith | I guess I'm not sure how the decision on governance can be left to the "new" TC. otherwise takeover would be trivial.. "do you, the elected non-diverse TC wish to approve an exclusion that supposedly prevents you from being on the TC?" | 15:41 |
| JayF | The current TC remains the current TC until the goverance change merges. | 15:42 |
| frickler | or whether anyone would indeed request such an exception to be voted upon | 15:42 |
| dansmith | frickler: if we're going to do that, I'd kinda look to the "new class" before those of us that weren't up for re-election this time, if for no other reason than that me leaving would make a vacancy that would then need to be resolved | 15:43 |
| dansmith | but yes, I think one redhat person stepping aside is a reasonable solution here | 15:43 |
| gmann | JayF: data can be shared but announcement of who all are winner of TC 5 seats should not be bcz that is not yet concluded | 15:43 |
| bauzas | sorry, I had to step off the computer for a few mins | 15:43 |
| fungi | that's technically true of every election though | 15:43 |
| dansmith | but I'd say that I also think this is likely to be a problem going forward, and I don't think there's any way around it, so we might want to just address it | 15:43 |
| JayF | I'd be surprised if there are 6 TC members willing to vote for an exception when we have willing volunteers to prevent it. | 15:44 |
| gmann | yeah, this is just a temporary solution, we should think of some parmanent one sometime | 15:44 |
| JayF | This isn't like the case where I ran, where if I hadn't run there would've been no backup candidates. | 15:44 |
| bauzas | I'd prefer to await for other RH folks to say something before the current TC votes for maybe waiving the point | 15:45 |
| JayF | bauzas: to be clear; No such resolution has even been proposed to vote on. | 15:45 |
| slaweq | I was affraid that we can end up in | 15:45 |
| slaweq | such situation | 15:45 |
| fungi | this is also something the red hat affiliated candidates can discuss amongst themselves first and try to reach a solution for, if that helps at all | 15:46 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Update tc-election-summary.py: reflect results https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/913918 | 15:46 |
| slaweq | and I am going to step down from the tc and give chance to new folks to be there | 15:46 |
| bauzas | we can indeed do this | 15:46 |
| JayF | slaweq: that'd be an incredibly selfless move for the good of the community | 15:47 |
| bauzas | I'd prefer to wait for all the rh folks to discuss first | 15:50 |
| gmann | bauzas: ++ that is right path | 15:50 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Update tc-election-summary.py: reflect results https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/913918 | 15:50 |
| dansmith | I really hate to see the most-voted candidate (by a good margin it looks like) have to step down, especially one pretty involved and helping with things like the recheck analysis :( | 15:52 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: dansmith: slaweq: gouthamr: when could we discuss about that ? | 15:52 |
| rosmaita | slaweq: i think dansmith has a good point, i suggest waiting for more discussion before stepping down | 15:53 |
| bauzas | ++ | 15:53 |
| gmann | ++ agree | 15:54 |
| fungi | the situation is important to resolve, but not so urgent that anyone should rush to a decision without making time for some discussion | 15:54 |
| bauzas | folks, I do understand the problem and I'm sorry about that, please wait until we can discuss between all of the RH TC members/candidates | 15:54 |
| dansmith | *shrug* we can.. I don't see any of the other candidates volunteering to step down (other than myself, which I'd be willing to do for sure, it just creates more problems) | 15:54 |
| bauzas | I'm open to discuss anytime until late today, even | 15:54 |
| bauzas | we have a situation and we need to resolve it | 15:55 |
| slaweq | sure, we can discuss that first | 15:55 |
| bauzas | so I guess we need to wait for spotz[m] and gouthamr to reply | 15:55 |
| fungi | though it's worth remembering (and i know i've said this in prior elections) that when there are enough affiliated candidates that there's a risk of such an outcome, it's worth the affiliated returning and candidate members having a conversation with their colleagues well in advance in order to determine how they might handle that outcome should it occur | 15:56 |
| dansmith | JayF: frickler knikolla Can you three affirm that you won't vote for an exception such that the only solution is either voluntary or forced disqualification? I think you're in that position already, but if you can just say so it'll help inform that conversation | 15:56 |
| rosmaita | well, i think the earliest we could have a vote on suspending the diversity requirement is the next TC meeting, which would be tuesday 26 march, so there's a bit of time | 15:56 |
| JayF | As TC Chair, unless I get compelling evidence otherwise, I'd say such a suspension would be in the form of a resolution | 15:57 |
| fungi | the tc isn't restricted to voting during meetings | 15:57 |
| bauzas | fungi: again, I'm sad this happened and that's why I want this to be fixed quickly | 15:57 |
| JayF | which would require a 1 week layover period | 15:57 |
| JayF | and as fungi indicates, is not centered around a meeting | 15:57 |
| JayF | dansmith: pretty much yes, as long as there are candidates willing and active with different affiliations to step up | 15:57 |
| dansmith | fungi: not sure if it's understood, but we definitely don't have any sort of organization to pre-decide candidates like this.. maybe it would help if we did, but we don't :) | 15:58 |
| bauzas | my personal opinion is that I'd prefer we rather find a solution than have this vote | 15:58 |
| gmann | I think we should push gerrit change for exception and record the conclusion | 15:58 |
| bauzas | if we go to the evidence noone wants to step down, then I'd eventually do it | 15:59 |
| JayF | bauzas++ my main concern is basically once we cross that line, we're unlikely to come back from it and/or prioritize leadership diversity | 15:59 |
| gmann | dansmith: not sure you create more problems but I am sure that you solve most :) | 15:59 |
| bauzas | so, please wait before preparing any vote, it would create a precedent I'd not like | 15:59 |
| knikolla | dansmith: i confirm that removing the limit is my least preferred option, especially considering the number of candidates in this election. | 15:59 |
| knikolla | once we create the precedent, it's really easy to keep citing it. | 15:59 |
| bauzas | +1 | 15:59 |
| dansmith | gmann: not sure what you're referring to, but I meant if I drop out, it helps the diversity requirement, but it means my vacancy has to be filled or left vacant until the next cycle | 15:59 |
| slaweq | knikolla I agree with You | 16:00 |
| dansmith | knikolla: yeah I'm looking for a "I won't vote this way" so we can discuss it as "we have to pick someone" | 16:00 |
| dansmith | but maybe we should just float the change as gmann says and record that | 16:00 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah that is another complex thing to handle considering your term duration | 16:01 |
| gmann | yeah and vote can be changed if we see there is no conclusion among candidates on stepping down or so | 16:01 |
| bauzas | I'd prefer we find a solution that wouldn't involve creating a gap in the current TC membership | 16:01 |
| knikolla | yeah, recording the outcome officially of the TC denying the change would bring visibility into the issue for people who don't read IRC. | 16:01 |
| knikolla | in the form of a gerrit change. | 16:01 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:02 |
| dansmith | and to be clear, I do not want to drop the requirement, I just think it's inevitable that we'll have to eventually | 16:02 |
| gmann | I always suspected that and I am not sure what is good solution to that. there are high chances that we will be in this situation in most of the election in future | 16:03 |
| spotz[m] | catching up give me a second | 16:03 |
| gmann | we should discuss about some permanent good solution in PTG, I will add that topic in etherpad | 16:03 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: tl;dr: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912/comments/050f9f37_8ed6f87a | 16:04 |
| knikolla | this situation is different though, as we have enough candidates. we're not yet to the point were we're unable to satisfy the requirement in any case. | 16:05 |
| JayF | +++ | 16:05 |
| bauzas | gmann: I originally thought our bylaws were allowing to automatically elect the next candidate, but apparently not | 16:05 |
| JayF | bauzas: I was considering proposing a charter change to that effect is this gets resolved. | 16:05 |
| gmann | bauzas: no, that was one of the way to resolve but not the rule or bylaw | 16:05 |
| knikolla | bauzas: that's a good idea I think, and we should propose to codify that. | 16:06 |
| bauzas | gmann: would that require a bylaw change ? | 16:06 |
| JayF | All diversity stuff around TC is now in TC charter | 16:06 |
| knikolla | just charter i think. | 16:06 |
| JayF | as of literally this month I think :) | 16:06 |
| gmann | bauzas: no, we do not have anything in bylaw now. it is just TC charter change | 16:06 |
| bauzas | cool | 16:06 |
| frickler | just ftr I would vote -1 on a resolution to waive the diversity requirement for this cycle, since there seem to be available alternative candidates | 16:06 |
| dansmith | easy to suggest that when you're not the bottom candidate... | 16:06 |
| bauzas | agreed, and that's why I prefer to have some internal meetup | 16:07 |
| slaweq | other solution than someone volunteering to step down is to do something similar to what was done with release names in the past and select to X candidates who met "legal" criteria | 16:07 |
| bauzas | that rule doesn't exist so we don't have to apply it | 16:07 |
| gmann | but I will say not to add that in current election as that can be unfair. from next election onwards we could add that | 16:07 |
| spotz[m] | Ok so how the charter reads(and similar to the Board governance) is that in this case unless the 2/3 vote took place, Goutham would not be selected and Artem would move into his slot | 16:07 |
| gmann | bauzas: yes, we should not add and apply in this election | 16:07 |
| knikolla | it's also easy to pull corporate structures to have other people bow out "voluntarily" to be honest. there is no good solution. | 16:07 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: this is not written yet, that's the whole point | 16:08 |
| knikolla | at least the last one voted preserves the will of the electorate to some point. | 16:08 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: I'm not sure I understand how the charter allows that to happen automatically https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#tc-diversity-requirement | 16:08 |
| gmann | yeah I am also not finding such thing in charter | 16:08 |
| bauzas | yeah I checked that for the last 3 hours and have figured out nothing explains how we resolve this | 16:08 |
| spotz[m] | The Charter does refer back to the By-laws | 16:09 |
| bauzas | so this has to be either someone stepping down voluntarely or a waiving vote | 16:09 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: nothing states that in the bylaws AFAICT | 16:09 |
| spotz[m] | And that is how the Board has dealt with it in the past | 16:09 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: the bylaws relating to this were just changed | 16:09 |
| gmann | slaweq: charter only refer to 'Affiliated ' definition in bylaw and nothing else | 16:09 |
| rosmaita | gmann: ++ | 16:10 |
| knikolla | TheJulia: has the foundation board been in a situation where one of the individual directors had to resign to preserve diversity requirements? | 16:10 |
| gmann | and there is nothing in bylaw now related to this matter, it is in TC charter and TC need to solve this | 16:10 |
| JayF | knikolla: FWIW I believe Julia is not working today | 16:10 |
| gmann | knikolla: yes, board has been in this situation when there are more member from DELL | 16:10 |
| knikolla | ah, thanks for the heads up JayF. | 16:11 |
| gmann | let me check exact email and how it was resolved there | 16:11 |
| spotz[m] | knikolla: The board has twice had the 2/3 vote. When Sean got hired by Dell and I got hired at RH. Admittedly we were already seated on the board at the time | 16:11 |
| rosmaita | gmann is correct about the TC needing to solve this, we realized this when we moved language out of the bylaws and into the tc charter | 16:11 |
| dansmith | for those of you that are a hard -2 on waiving the requirement, what happens when we get successive elections with no other candidates? shrink the TC to 5, or you just think holding out until it's unavoidable (which in this case it's not)? | 16:11 |
| JayF | I honestly see the election where I had to run last-minute to prevent that from happening as an inflection point | 16:12 |
| JayF | we've not had an election since then where the math didn't work out for viable candidacies | 16:12 |
| gmann | yes, I remember now. its two times board was in that situation but anyways we do not need to apply exactly same solution what was applied there | 16:12 |
| JayF | and diversity across the project is up: timburke | 16:12 |
| bauzas | dansmith: during the 2 weeks of the campaign, TC has to identify those risks and amend the charter accordingly, if you want MHO | 16:12 |
| JayF | er | 16:12 |
| knikolla | dansmith: i won't be an elected representative at that moment, and I hope that the high turnover and flesh blood of the current tc and chair structures is a good harbinger of more interest from the community in participating in governance. | 16:13 |
| JayF | tkajinam has been representing NEC well with lots of activity | 16:13 |
| JayF | GR-OSS (as evidenced by me and others) are involved | 16:13 |
| gmann | JayF: not NEC. NTT | 16:13 |
| dansmith | bauzas: I'm not asking you, I'm asking the people who are -2 on the waiver | 16:13 |
| knikolla | if that is not the case and this is short lived. i'm happy to be the grumpy old man shouting at clouds. | 16:13 |
| spotz[m] | The sad thing no one is mentioning is that out of 298 registered voters only 57 people voted | 16:13 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: which is unfortunately an usual number | 16:14 |
| gmann | that is always a problem in every election and we keep discussing that everytime | 16:14 |
| dansmith | okay I see it as unfortunately inevitable but maybe we're at the bottom and looking up | 16:14 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: I even specifically walked some of my new contributors through the "get voting access" steps and they still failed to do all of them right | 16:14 |
| knikolla | spotz: way to counter my point :( | 16:14 |
| fungi | knikolla: not to speak for TheJulia, but there have been quite a few occasions of exactly that over the years, well before TheJulia was on the board even | 16:15 |
| spotz[m] | Not intended knikolla just very into data and analyzing it | 16:15 |
| JayF | knikolla: if we have the candidates, I'm much less worried. Election participation has always been a point of difficulty | 16:15 |
| fungi | not just from dell, but also hp, red hat, and others who ended up needing to resolve similar conflicts | 16:15 |
| knikolla | i'm curious to see the effect that all of the smaller open infra days will have on community involvement | 16:15 |
| knikolla | considering the significantly lower barrier to attend. | 16:15 |
| spotz[m] | We have the historic issue of no candidates, we talked about reducing the size and then started having enough candidates. And we have the issue no one voted | 16:16 |
| gmann | I remember for DELL when sean, prakash, and Arkady were board from dell at same time | 16:16 |
| fungi | russell stepped down from the board as well when rh had too many people selected in the individual member election | 16:17 |
| bauzas | gouthamr: are you available for a quick chat between all the TC elected people from RH + dansmith? | 16:17 |
| slaweq | sorry but I have to leave know. I can meet to discuss that later during the evening today or tomorrow. Just please ping me - I will have my irc open on a phone | 16:19 |
| gouthamr | hello; terrible time for me due to a family medical emergency that began to unwind just as this discussion took off; so i am sure i'm doing injustice to not read all the arguments around this; i will revisit this thread... but my stance is to uphold integrity and independence, and against any sort of bias... having been at my employer for a while, i think this will be their stance as well, although i am not authorized to speak for | 16:20 |
| gouthamr | them | 16:20 |
| gouthamr | in any way... its a conundrum to deal with, and i'll help you deal with it by expressing my view.. | 16:20 |
| TheJulia | So I have family stuff going on this week and I’m not on top of exactly what is going on, but there have been times where someone was not able to be seated due to diversity requirements. Typically this shouldn’t be controversial and the involved parties should be willing and able to self resolve it if there are other candidates. | 16:20 |
| spotz[m] | I think it'll be mixed. We'll most likely get more local people to attend and a few people who will travel to some. But we will miss out on the larger bonding | 16:20 |
| dansmith | so, I can say this privately to my redhat colleagues, but I might as well say it here in case it resonates with others: | 16:20 |
| TheJulia | spotz[m]: elections are hard, and I looked at the OSI results on ?monday? As well. | 16:21 |
| JayF | whether or not I like what's coming next, thanks for that Dan :) | 16:21 |
| dansmith | I would encourage spreading out the leadership duties a bit and ask that one of the two RH people that are already in other positions (spotz[m] on the board and bauzas as just re-elected PTL) consider stepping aside and letting the other candidates fulfill a leadership role | 16:22 |
| dansmith | certainly no requirement against holding two, but I think it's reasonably healthy to expect to spread those duties around and avoid too much of a concentration of the same people with feet in many camps | 16:22 |
| dansmith | it sucks for anyone to have to step aside, for sure | 16:23 |
| bauzas | if I'm the only one TC member also be a PTL, then that's a good point, although not violating anything AFAICT | 16:23 |
| dansmith | and as I said, I'm willing as well | 16:23 |
| JayF | That's a nice new angle on my suggestions around ensuring we cycle out leadership positions, too :) I like that idea dan | 16:24 |
| bauzas | but mho is that I'd prefer to start working on the TC and asking someone else to act as a nova PTL | 16:24 |
| TheJulia | I’ll leave y’all with this before I go back to talking with my father: change in leadership is a good thing. | 16:24 |
| bauzas | nova just has another problem, which is the lack of volunteers for stepping up as PTL | 16:24 |
| bauzas | so I'd rather resign my PTL seat | 16:25 |
| gmann | this is considered as good idea but bauzas also has good point to move to TC role from PTL and I see that is also valuable | 16:25 |
| bauzas | but that won't solve the problem we're having now | 16:25 |
| bauzas | so that's why I really want ourselves to resolve that | 16:26 |
| JayF | There's a weird supply/demand effect with leadership positions: there was no willingness to have additional PTL candidates for Ironic until I said I'd step down, for instance | 16:26 |
| spotz[m] | If I step down might I point out the total lack of diversity on the TC, but if that's what you want I'll step down | 16:26 |
| JayF | this is part of why I don't want to drop the diversity requirement: we'd be dropping the "demand" for non-RH leaders | 16:26 |
| dansmith | bauzas: not really helpful to offer to leave a gaping hole in nova as well as this problem :) | 16:26 |
| knikolla | My 2 cents: I think people who have been on the TC for long already carry a lot of influence without needing a +2 and I would strongly favor newcomer who are lacking that visibility that the seat would give them. | 16:27 |
| bauzas | I know enough nova to continue to paperwork efforts on nova without having the PTL hat y'know | 16:27 |
| rosmaita | i will just toss out that i intentionally did not run again for the TC both because i hoped to avert the too many RH people problem and because i want to see new people on the tc | 16:27 |
| dansmith | (I'm in another meeting now, so delayed responses) | 16:28 |
| bauzas | dansmith: my only concern is that I don't want nova to be seen as a leaderless project, which would send a terrible signal | 16:28 |
| dansmith | bauzas: indeed | 16:28 |
| gmann | true | 16:28 |
| gmann | that will be another big problem to solve :) | 16:29 |
| bauzas | nova won't be without leaders, for sure, if no PTL | 16:29 |
| bauzas | but that's still a terrible thing to act | 16:29 |
| knikolla | leaderful projects :) | 16:29 |
| dansmith | spotz[m]: I recognize the shift on multiple axes of diversity would not necessarily be welcome, but I think there's some benefit to potentially avoid this issue by trading some for another | 16:31 |
| JayF | I think spotz[m] is the only woman in a technical leadership position anywhere in openstack, yeah? We don't have any female identifing PTLs either AFAIK | 16:33 |
| dansmith | not counting TheJulia on the board? | 16:34 |
| bauzas | Horizon now has a new PTL | 16:34 |
| gmann | ? we are talking about affiliation diversity I think. other diversity is another big things to build and discuss. IMO, let's solve the current affiliation diversity for now | 16:34 |
| dansmith | we've also been much better balanced in the past and could imagine improving in the future | 16:34 |
| JayF | dansmith: I wasn't counting the board as technical leadership | 16:34 |
| dansmith | JayF: oh I am | 16:34 |
| dansmith | leadership I mean, maybe not "technical" | 16:35 |
| JayF | gmann: I agree in the general; but in the specific when there's pressure for the only female elected technical leader in openstack to consider stepping back I think it's worth a comment | 16:35 |
| gmann | JayF: and that is not 100% correct in technical leadership also. I remember glance PTL also and may be a few more | 16:36 |
| spotz[m] | The Board is diverse, it's the only place we are diverse | 16:36 |
| dansmith | oh right, glance PTL of course, can't believe I forgot :) | 16:36 |
| bauzas | nova had once a female PTL that could act again | 16:36 |
| gmann | I am saying let's not consider gender or other things in affiliation diversity and RH candidates decide the way they wanted to handle this | 16:37 |
| JayF | I'm just looking at optics from this single point in time, that's all. Not trying to make any bigger point other than that | 16:37 |
| fungi | if it helps, when i decided not to run again for tc it was because someone else employed by the same organization i am was eager to run and i figured i could continue to serve the community with the sort of influence knikolla is talking about even if i couldn't officially vote on tc matters | 16:37 |
| dansmith | well, my calculus is about leadership positions in general and the opportunity for new people to contribute in that way, which is definitely where we have the biggest looming iceberg, IMHO | 16:38 |
| JayF | That's why it's as important as ever that we ensure one of those willing candidates from other affiliations gets their shot | 16:39 |
| gmann | anyways this election we need to solve it with our current requirement/rule (basically we do not have any rule to handle it except waive off) but for future cases, I have added this topic in PTG etherpad to discuss and if we can build some rules to handle it in better ways - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc#L43 | 16:47 |
| spotz[m] | Do the ptach with the PTL results, email that the TC election is under review. We shouldn't do anything with out Goutham's input as he is honestly the person affected | 16:49 |
| gmann | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912 | 16:50 |
| gmann | is it concluded among RH folks that gouthamr is affected? but agree not to conclude until agreed among all. considering gouthamr family medical emergency we should not be in hurry and take any decision without him | 16:51 |
| knikolla | until anyone volunteers out, all are affected, as there is no automatic resolution. | 16:53 |
| gmann | yes | 16:53 |
| spotz[m] | You've had almost everyone volunteer out at this point but I still don't think a decision should be made without him | 16:56 |
| knikolla | that's a good point. :) | 16:57 |
| frickler | just a random idea: can we increase the size of the TC again, maybe just for one cycle? if all seven current candidates would get added, the issue would be solved without anyone giving up anything. well actually every TC member would give up some percentage of their influence, but that might be fairer than a single person giving up everything | 17:21 |
| dansmith | interesting idea, but I think that solves this case while ensuring next cycle we'll be in trouble :) | 17:23 |
| fungi | i think previous changes to the tc size, even in reaction to events of an election, were left to the new tc to decide | 17:23 |
| fungi | so while i don't think it's a bad idea, i also don't think there's precedent for exactly that and it would need some thought | 17:23 |
| gmann | good idea but changing that in between of elections seems problematic | 17:24 |
| frickler | yeah, I'm just trying to evaluate possible options. having another round of election likely would also not be possible due to time constraints I assume? | 17:27 |
| spotz[m] | It would only make a difference if we could be assured more voters and then it could be argued it wasn't fair. You could have an election of just the RH candidates and take the top 3 but that doesn't seem the preferred method within the group as you already have the voted on order of preference | 17:30 |
| zaneb | the waiver has historically been used in cases where somebody changed affiliation between elections (for transparently non-evil reasons) | 21:25 |
| zaneb | I don't recall if that was there from the beginning or added later. we certainly had a case where Russell had to step down from the board because Monty changed affiliations. I suspect it was introduced to avoid a repeat | 21:26 |
| fungi | good point, wit the foundation board of directors there were times that it arose between elections | 21:30 |
| zaneb | I wouldn't want to see it get to the point where there is a regularly scheduled biannual 2/3 vote on whether $EMPLOYER is attempting a hostile takeover of OpenStack or not | 21:38 |
| zaneb | that wouldn't be healthy for anyone | 21:38 |
| fungi | agreed, i'm hopeful that it will be resolved without coming to a vote of any kind | 21:39 |
| fungi | this is the first time it's gotten to this point even, in the past we narrowly escaped anyone needing to do anything | 21:40 |
| fungi | so still a bit early to assume it will become a regular event | 21:40 |
| JayF | zaneb: I doubt there is significant risk of such an override passing the current TC. | 21:43 |
| gmann | I think, it will be more frequent in future and we kinda expected this situation many cycles before when we were just at the edge. | 21:51 |
| gmann | that is why we should prepare some rules to solve those like we do have for TC vacant seat situation. I started writing all possible options to discussion/consider in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc#L55 | 21:52 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/governance master: Add TC results from the 2024.2/Dalmatian election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913912 | 23:57 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!