Adding amrth candidacy for Trove This email is to announce my candidacy for the PTL of Trove for the Queens cycle. My candidacy has been formally submitted in[1]. I have been the PTL for the Trove project since the Trove release (in March 2016). During this time, we've seen significant improvements during the Newton and Ocata releases but faced a setback with the departure of several companies from the community in the Pike release. Trove faces many of the same challenges faced by projects that are not part of the 'core' of OpenStack. Even though the last two user surveys[2,3] show that Trove is one of the popular projects that people want to adopt, this has not translated into an increase in active participation. The challenges facing Trove in the Queens release are broadly to: 1. improve active participation and contribution in code reviews and stabilize the core reviewer team. 2. keep up with changes in the rest of OpenStack 3. stabilize and maintain the existing code base Two important aspects of my candidacy that are worth highlighting here. The first is that I am in favor of taking a serious look at the current Trove architecture and revisiting whether we should reimplement the project as a layered platform project that better leverages underlying infrastructure (IaaS) projects. A good discussion on the mailing list [4] surfaced a number of ideas which I intend to discuss in depth at the PTG in Denver with other members of the team. The hope is that we can come out of the PTG with a clear action plan, and more importantly a commitment from participants to work on the project and implement that plan. The second is that at least in the Queens release, and until we can get to the point where we have more active participation in the project, I intend to place the project in 'maintenance-mode'. A change has been proposed in the governance repository[5] to make this happen. I expect however that the TC will respect the wishes of whoever is elected PTL of the project in this election cycle. I highlight both of these aspects (above) because they are not universally accepted. I am aware that at least one other person wishes to also run for election to the position of Trove PTL in the Queens cycle, and we differ in our views on these two subjects. As I write this, he has not yet announced his candidacy, and I will likely be submitting this before he does so I will merely note that we differ on how to approach the issue of rearchitecting Trove (he would prefer we continue down the current path and stabilize/enhance it rather than rearchitect it), and does not favor the notion of attaching the maintenance-mode tag to the project. While we differ on these two issues, I intend to remain an active participant in the project, and support the PTL's lead if I am not re-elected. [1] https://review.openstack.org/48962 [2] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf [3] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/October2016SurveyReport.pdf [4] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/wokk73ecv44ipfjz [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/488947/