Open Stack

On 18/02/15 10:07 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 05:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:29:19AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-02-17 02:37:50 -0800:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:14:39PM +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>> > > > > ## Cores are *NOT* special
>> > > > >
>> > > > > At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
>> > > > > changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
>> > > > > a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
>> > > > > that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
>> > > > > protected, irc channels for core reviewers.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is seriously disturbing.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you're one of those core reviewers hanging out on a private channel,
>> > > > please contact me privately: I'd love to hear from you why we failed as
>> > > > a community at convincing you that an open channel is the place to be.
>> > > >
>> > > > No public shaming, please: education first.
>> > >
>> > > I've been thinking about these last few lines a bit, I'm not entirely
>> > > comfortable with the dynamic this sets up.
>> > >
>> > > What primarily concerns me is the issue of community accountability. A core
>> > > feature of OpenStack's project & individual team governance is the idea
>> > > of democractic elections, where the individual contributors can vote in
>> > > people who they think will lead OpenStack in a positive way, or conversely
>> > > hold leadership to account by voting them out next time. The ability of
>> > > individuals contributors to exercise this freedom though, relies on the
>> > > voters being well informed about what is happening in the community.
>> > >
>> > > If cases of bad community behaviour, such as use of passwd protected IRC
>> > > channels, are always primarily dealt with via further private communications,
>> > > then we are denying the voters the information they need to hold people to
>> > > account. I can understand the desire to avoid publically shaming people
>> > > right away, because the accusations may be false, or may be arising from a
>> > > simple mis-understanding, but at some point genuine issues like this need
>> > > to be public. Without this we make it difficult for contributors to make
>> > > an informed decision at future elections.
>> > >
>> > > Right now, this thread has left me wondering whether there are still any
>> > > projects which are using password protected IRC channels, or whether they
>> > > have all been deleted, and whether I will be unwittingly voting for people
>> > > who supported their use in future openstack elections.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Shaming a person is a last resort, when that person may not listen to
>> > reason. It's sometimes necessary to bring shame to a practice, but even
>> > then, those who are participating are now draped in shame as well and
>> > will have a hard time saving face.
>>
>> This really isn't about trying to shame people, rather it is about
>> having accountability in the open.
>>
>> If the accusations of running private IRC channels were false, then
>> yes, it would be an example of shaming to then publicise those who
>> were accused.
>>
>> Since it is confirmed that private password protected IRC channels
>> do in fact exist, then we need to have the explanations as to why
>> this was done be made in public. The community can then decide
>> whether the explanations offered provide sufficient justification.
>> This isn't about shaming, it is about each individual being able
>> to decide for themselves as to whether what happened was acceptable,
>> given the explanations.
>
>Right. And Stef is pulling that information together from the
>appropriate sources. Sometimes it's easier to have those sorts of
>conversations one-on-one than in a fully public forum. When we have the
>full picture, then will know whether further action is needed (I hope
>the team decides to close down the channel on their own, for example).
>In any case, we will publish the facts. But let's give Stef time to work
>on it, first.

Hi All,

I'm pretty sure this was discussed already in a TC meeting, which I
did not attend unfortunately. In the spite of keeoing things open -
not only the issues but also the solutions found - would someone from
the TC (or Stefano) mind highlighting what the resolution for this
issue is?

I don't think there's a great solution for the per-project
organizational issues other than recommending people to work in the
open and having the community fighting for it. However, I do expect
there to be a solution for the secret channel, which by the way still
exists.

Thank you all for participating in this discussion,
Flavio

>
>Doug
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>> --
>> |: http://berrange.com      -o-
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
>> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-
>> http://virt-manager.org :|
>> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-
>> http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
>> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-
>> http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150308/6efb0b5d/attachment.pgp>