[openstack-dev] [tc] Who is allowed to vote for TC candidates
alawson at aqorn.com
Thu Apr 30 20:29:49 UTC 2015
For the record, thanks for your replies guys. I am not suggesting any
specific means to resolve or suggesting what we're doing is wrong; only
that the current structure seems odd.
The TC charter, as I read it, states that the TC committee represents
everything of a technical nature of OpenStack via this quote: "generally
has technical oversight over all of OpenStack". That includes whatever the
Operators contribute or engage with ("all of OpenStack"). Given OpenStack
has a vibrant Operators community who contribute a great deal in terms of
"rubber on the road" feedback, suggestions for improvement and real-world
implementation reality checks, it seems appropriate that the committee
tasked to oversee everything technical within OpenStack (which I think we
all agree encompasses more than those who contribute code) should not be
disallowing one community but allowing another to elect that committee.
This i know is totally my opinion, but if we require Operators to seek
special approval, that doesn't seem to fit our ideal goals of Commonality.
Whatever we need to do to quantify those who contribute to OpenStack versus
those who don't is tricky I agree. I don't know the answer. But it would
seem to me the current situation is ripe for a change.
427 North Tatnall Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 30/04/15 12:07 +0300, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
>> On 04/30/15 10:15, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Anyway, I find it curious that the TC is elected by those
>> within the
>> developer community but TC candidates talk about representing
>> the operator
>> community who are not allowed to vote. Operators meaning
>> Architects, etc. It sounds like this is something most TC
>> candidates want
>> which most would agree is a good thing. At least I think so. ;
>> I'm going to nitpick on terminology a bit. The TC is elected by
>> *technical contributors*, not developers, as described in the
>> I think there is a key misconception in this thread that the TC is
>> supposed to represent (or talk about representing) more than just the
>> technical contributors that produce OpenStack.
>> When the OpenStack Foundation was set up, three bodies of governance
>> were established:
>> - the Board of Directors (representing the community as a whole)
>> - the Technical Committee (representing technical contributors)
>> - the User Committee (representing users and ops of OpenStack)
>> The Technical Committee mandate is therefore not to represent the users
>> and Ops of OpenStack in that setup, it's the role of the User
>> If we did include Ops, we would be clearly overstepping our mandate.
>> Thierry, essentially I agree with you. I do think though that the
>> between Dev & Ops is an unhealthy situation. Two separate bodies working
>> in two
>> different ways with two different agendas is actually very much against
>> current way that most development organizations are aspire towards.
>> The TC charter  states.
>> " The Technical Committee (“TC”) is tasked with providing the technical
>> leadership for OpenStack as a whole (all official projects, as defined
>> It enforces OpenStack ideals (Openness, Transparency, Commonality,
>> Quality...), decides on issues affecting multiple projects, forms an
>> appeals board for technical decisions, and generally has technical
>> over all of OpenStack."
>> IMHO, the spirit of the original question that was raised was - how can
>> "all of
>> OpenStack" only be those who write the code, and not those that use and
>> it on a day to day basis?
> Are these thoughts based on the current state of OpenStack? or are
> they influenced a bit by our past?
> The reason I ask is because I believe we've come a long way on
> integrating more with Ops and Users. New groups have been created, new
> meetups have been run, a dedicated day has been assigned at the
> summit, a dedicated mailing list - that most of us follow - has been
> created, etc, etc, etc.
> I've seen the number of threads to discuss Ops topics increase in
> openstack-dev and the influence of Ops - even just points of views
> inherited from the feedback we've got - on reviews has gotten better
> as well.
> While I don't consider we're there yet, I do think there have been
> several improvements in this area, which is why I'm curious to know
> the answer to my questions above.
> If it's a matter of having more Ops voting for the TC, we do have a
> process in place that we could likely improve. Other than that, I
> believe Thierry and Doug have explained perfectly the issues related
> to having these 2 groups merged from a *governance* perspective.
>> Rather than asking that Ops should be able to elect the TC, you should
>> probably start discussing how to improve on the User committee election
>> process and visibility.
>> It would be great to understand how exactly this was done, what their
>> is and how much influence they have on technical decisions within the
>> OpenStack as a whole 
>>  http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html
>>  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
>> Best Regards,
>> Maish Saidel-Keesing
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Flavio Percoco
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev