# 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 RollCall+1 votes from TC members.

## Code changes¶

The openstack/governance repository also contains code to build and publish pages on the governance.openstack.org 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.

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.

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.

## Appointing PTLs¶

In a resolution regarding 2014-11-28 Process for Leaderless Programs, the TC was granted authority to appoint a Project Team Lead to any official project where the election process failed to produce a leader. When this happens, reference/projects.yaml in the governance repository should be updated to indicate the new PTL and their appointment by adding their name and contact details and updating an appointed key with the cycle during which they will be the PTL. If the appointed key is already present, add the cycle to the list. If the key is not present, add it and set the cycle as a single member of a list. This format is used for two reasons: to track all the cycles for which there has been an appointment and to require a comprehensible change for review by the TC. The appointed key should only be changed when the PTL was not chosen by the election process.

These changes are subject to the standard review and approval guidelines.

## 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.