Open Stack

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:

> However, as was apparent in the Technical Committee meeting discussion
>
about it yesterday, most of us are not convinced that establishing and
> blessing a separate team is the most efficient way to give UX the
> attention it deserves. Ideally, UX-minded folks would get active
> *within* existing project teams rather than form some sort of
> counter-power as a separate team. In the same way we want scalability
> and security mindset to be present in every project, we want UX to be
> present in every project. It's more of an advocacy group than a
> "program" imho.
>

Having been working on a cross-project project for a while now I can
confirm that there is a startling lack of coordination between projects on
the same/similar tasks.  Oslo was a HUGE step toward reducing that and
providing a good reference for code and libraries.  There is nothing today
for the intangible parts that are both user and developer facing such as
common message (log) formats, common terms (tenant vs project) and so on.

I think the model of the OSSG is a good one.  After reading the log of
yesterday's meeting I think I would have thrown in that the need from my
perspective is for a coordination role as much as anything.

The deliverables in the UX Program proposal seem a bit fuzzy to me as far
as what might go into the repo.  If it is interface specs, those should be
in either the project code repos docs/ tree or in the docs project
directly.  Same for a Human Interface Guide (HIG) that both Horizon and OSC
have (well, I did steal a lot of OSC's guide from Horizon's).

The interaction with users seems very valuable to me.  Frankly, user polls
are not my favorite task, even if I always learn a lot about my project
watching users bend it in ways I never imagined.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131120/0fd5686b/attachment.html>