House rules for governance changes approval

While most of the governance changes follow the rules described in the Motions section and call for a formal discussion and vote by the Technical Committee membership, we also have a number of exceptions to that general rule, in order to speed up the processing of smaller changes. This document lists those “house rules” for reference.

Typo fixes

When the change fixes content that is obviously wrong (updates a PTL email address, fixes a typo…) then the chair is allowed to directly approve them. Typo fixes proposed by the chair should have 2 RoleCall+1 votes from TC members.

Code changes

The openstack/governance repository also contains code to build and publish pages on the website. For those we apply the normal code review rules (with RollCall votes being considered +-2): change will be approved once 2 RollCall+1 (other than the change owner) are posted (and no RollCall-1).

Delegated tags

Some tags are delegated to a specific team, like stable:follows-policy or vulnerability:managed. Those need to get approved by the corresponding team PTL, and can be directly approved by the chair once this approval is given.

Other project team updates

For other changes within an existing project team, like addition of a new git repository or self-assertion of a tag, we use lazy consensus. If there is no objection posted one week after the change is proposed (or a significant new revision of the change is posted), then the change can be approved by the chair.

One exception to this would be significant team mission statement changes, which should be approved by a formal vote after discussion on the mailing list or the gerrit change.

In corner cases where the change is time-sensitive (like a deliverable reorganization which blocks a release request), the chair may fast-track the change, but should report on that exception in the TC update.

Goal Updates from PTLs

PTLs will acknowledge community-wide goals at the start of each cycle by providing links to artifacts for tracking the work, or an explanation of why work is not going to be done. They will also provide references to completion artifacts at the end of each cycle for goals where work was needed. These patches should be reviewed by TC members for completeness and clarity (is enough information provided for interested parties to track the work, or is the justification for not doing work clear enough).

The patches to add team acknowledgments, planning artifacts, and completion artifacts to the goal document do not need to go through the formal vote process, and so lazy consensus rules will be used. If there is no objection posted one week after the most recent version of a change is proposed, then the change can be approved by the chair.

If a TC member feels that one of these responses needs to be discussed by the entire TC, they should bring it up on the mailing list and the change should not be approved until after the discussion is completed.

Rolling back fast-tracked changes

As a safety net, if any member disagrees with any change that was fast-tracked under one of those house rules, that member can propose a revert of the change. Such revert should be directly approved by the chair and the change be discussed on the mailing list or on the re-proposed change in gerrit.