Open Stack

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-21 09:22:53 -0700:
> Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> > So, HPE is seeking sponsors to continue the core party. The reasons are
> > varied - internal sponsors have moved to other projects, the Big Tent
> > has drastically increased the # of cores, and the upcoming summit format
> > change creates quite a bit of uncertainty on everything surrounding the
> > summit.
> >
> > Furthermore, the existence of the Core party has been... contentious.
> > Some believe it's exclusionary, others think it's inappropriate, yet
> > others think it's a good way to thank those of use who agree to be
> > constantly pestered for code reviews.
> >
> > I'm writing this message for two reasons - mostly, to kick off a
> > discussion on whether the party is worthwhile. Secondly, to signal to
> > other organizations that this promotional opportunity is available.
> >
> > Personally, I appreciate being thanked for my work. I do not necessarily
> > need to be thanked in this fashion, however as the past venues have been
> > far more subdued than the Tuesday night events (think cocktail party),
> > it's a welcome mid-week respite for this overwhelmed little introvert. I
> > don't want to see it go, but I will understand if it does.
> >
> > Some numbers, for those who like them (Thanks to Mark Atwood for
> > providing them):
> >
> > Total repos: 1010
> > Total approvers: 1085
> > Repos for official teams: 566
> > OpenStack repo approvers: 717
> > Repos under release management: 90
> > Managed release repo approvers: 281
> 
> I think it's inappropriate because it gives a wrong incentive to become 
> a core reviewer. Core reviewing should just be a duty you sign up to, 
> not necessarily a way to get into a cool party. It was also a bit 
> exclusive of other types of contributions.
> 
> Apparently in Austin the group was reduced to only release:managed 
> repositories. This tag is to describe which repositories the release 
> team is comfortable handling. I think it's inappropriate to reuse it to 
> single out a subgroup of cool folks, and if that became a tradition the 
> release team would face pressure from repositories to get the tag that 
> are totally unrelated to what the tag describes.
> 
> So.. while I understand the need for calmer parties during the week, I 
> think the general trends is to have less parties and more small group 
> dinners. I would be fine with HPE sponsoring more project team dinners 
> instead :)
> 

I echo all your thoughts above Thierry, though I'd like to keep around
one aspect of them.

Some of these parties have been fantastic for learning about the local
culture of each city, so I want to be clear: that is something that
_does_ embody the spirit of the summit. Being in different cities brings
different individuals, and also puts all of us in a different frame
of mind, which I think opens us up to more collaboration. As has been
stated before, some of our more introverted collaborators welcome the
idea of a smaller party, but still one where introductions can be made,
and new social networks can be built.

Since part of this process is spending more money per person to produce a
deeper cultural experience, I wonder if a more fair system for attendance
could be devised. Instead of limiting to release:managed repositories,
could we randomize selection? In doing so, we could also include a
percentage of people who are not core reviewers but have expressed
interest in attending.

Anyway, I suppose this just boils down to a suggestion for whoever
decides to pick up the bill. Thanks for your consideration, whoever you
are. :)