Open Stack

As a smaller category list:

Compute (eg Nova, Glance)
Storage (eg Swift, Cinder)
Networking (eg mutnauQ)
CI/QA/Docs (eg CI, tempest, docs)
Operations (eg Horizon, Heat, Ceilometer)
"cross project" (eg oslo, keystone)

This certainly isn't a perfect list, but it's an alternative that has some strengths. For one, it's much shorter and could even support a "2 from each category" rule. Second, it still allows for API/CLI to remain in their respective projects.

--John



On May 30, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com> wrote:

> I'm leaning toward a flat election, too. I did want to think through the category proposal more completely, though.
> 
> Twelve is already such a big group, and as Anne points out there aren't categories for the PaaS-layer projects. Would they each need a separate category, or would "PaaS" be the category? If the latter, why not combine the "IaaS" projects in a similar way?
> 
> I think we'll find that we have an awful lot of categories -- likely more than projects, in the end. I'm not sure it's practical to create a seat for each useful category of community member, and I'm not sure it's necessary. The TC should consult with subject-matter experts as needed, and anyone in the community should be able to bring issues to the TC for consideration. 
> 
> Doug
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> Honestly, I think the flat (no category or PTL requirements) 11 has
> the advantage of simplicity, and likelyhood of attracting / electing
> people that touch more than one project, which helps the TC have a
> more global project POV. It also means that as the scope of OpenStack
> changes we don't have to keep redefining what's an important category
> and/or project.
> 
> My $0.02 of preference.
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Anne Gentle
> <annegentle at justwriteclick.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Anne Gentle
> >> <annegentle at justwriteclick.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> Back in January we had a thread[1] about modifying how the Technical
> >>>> Committee members[2] are selected, in order to cope with future expected
> >>>> growth in the number of projects. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time
> >>>> to properly discuss it before we had to look into incubated projects
> >>>> graduation and setting up the Spring elections, so we decided to
> >>>> postpone this to the Havana cycle.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-January/004513.html
> >>>> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
> >>>>
> >>>> To kick off this second attempt, we had an interesting session at the
> >>>> Design Summit where various goals were discussed and various solutions
> >>>> proposed and compared. I summarized the current state of affairs on the
> >>>> wiki at:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TC_Membership_Models
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like everyone interested with this discussion to have a look at this
> >>>> page. If you see goals that we missed, please suggest them on the thread
> >>>> here, along with how well each currently-proposed solution would score
> >>>> against it. Same if you think some model was not scored fairly against
> >>>> existing stated goals. Finally, if you have an alternate model which
> >>>> you'd like to suggest, feel free to do so. I'll keep the wiki page
> >>>> updated based on the ML discussion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the draft write up. I have some thoughts for discussion.
> >>>
> >>> You point to an idea number of 11 for the group size, and I would like
> >>> some citation for where that number comes from. I know of the two-pizza rule
> >>> in tech, and there's group research around "ten-groups" (saying eight to
> >>> fourteen people in a group is about right for overcoming human nature and
> >>> collaborating effectively, citing book Corporation Man by Antony Jay
> >>> (Pelican 1975)). What causes you to land on 11? Could we say 10 or a range
> >>> of 8-14 instead?
> >>>
> >>> Defining the ideal group size will help with scoring. For example, I
> >>> don't think the difference between 11 members and 13 members merits a +2 vs.
> >>> a +1 score.
> >>>
> >>> I also think the ideal number of members will help determine whether
> >>> categories are useful, and further defining categories to discover how many
> >>> there may be will help score that one better.
> >>
> >>
> >> The category model seems interesting, but I would like to be able to
> >> consider a more concrete proposal. Should we work out a list of specific
> >> categories?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes! I was waiting for a range of values to see where my list from the old
> > thread [1] might work inside a range.
> >
> > Storage
> > Computing
> > Networking
> > Monitoring
> > Operating
> > Packaging
> > Continuous Integration and Builds
> > Doc
> > QA
> > Integration Testing
> > API
> > UI/CLI (Dashboard/clients)
> >
> > That's twelve, and I may not be including all the categories. Some do not
> > have projects yet. There may be another category of "services on top of
> > Computing" that I'm under-representing, thinking of Databases or Load
> > Balancers or DNS that would rely on Compute to provide their service. How
> > would we expand to include them?
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > 1.
> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-January/004539.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Doug
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Anne
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hopefully we can all come up with a generally-consensual model able to
> >>>> handle future growth of the project.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >>>> Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Anne Gentle
> >>> annegentle at justwriteclick.com
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anne Gentle
> > annegentle at justwriteclick.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev