Open Stack

On 22/06/16 10:52 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Doug Wiegley wrote:
>>>So I'd argue that you need both. You need the TC whenever a hard call has to be made, but in order to minimize the number of those hard calls (and favor consensus building) you also need working groups to build a bottom-up reasonable way forward.
>>
>>This reads very strange to me, as I’d expect a group of technical leaders to both make hard calls *and* to be able to build consensus on overall direction and vision. They’re two sides of the same coin. What is it about our process that means the TC can’t build consensus on direction, but can only impose its will? I expect you didn’t mean it to sound that way, though. Is the workload too high on the bookkeeping to prevent the vision building?
>
>Some TC members definitely have the time (and will, and experience) to 
>work on architecture definition. A number of TC members (including 
>Jay, Robert and myself) actually called for an "architecture 
>workgroup" within the TC (the same way we have a communications 
>workgroup, or a project team guide documentation workgroup) for some 
>time now, but it never fully formed. One of the reasons is that we are 
>all very busy and were all waiting for someone else to start it up. At 
>the same time, I see no reason to limit that workgroup to TC members. 
>There are other people interested. The two groups don't have to be 
>mutually exclusive.
>
>So I'm very happy that Clint picked up the ball where we left it. I 
>expect TC members to participate in the group.

This ...

>>[...]
>>Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this initiative. I find it mildly disconcerting that the folks that I thought we were electing to fill this role will instead be filled by others, but the vacuum does need to be filled, and I thank Clint for stepping up.
>
>And I don't see why architecture should be the reserved domain of 
>precisely 13 people. We are electing the TC to make final calls where 
>needed. Not to be the only people that are allowed to work on 
>architecture. For that, an open workgroup sounds a thousand times 
>better.

... and this!

Not only I believe architecture shouldn't be a reserved domain of the TC but I
also believe that *ANYONE* willing to step up and *contribute* to the TC tasks
should totally feel free to do so. Contributing is what all this is about. It's
not a matter of whether the TC is doing "well" its job (or at all) but a matter
of enabling others to contribute to fixing the pressing issues we have in the
community.

Part of the analysis and work made by the TC was to identify several of the pain
points the community has and to find the best way to work those issues out
without burning the members of the TC out and by making sure others feel enabled
to contribute and be awesome.

I don't see why having a dedicated group of people to solve some of the
identified issues should be seen as an overstep on the TC duties or, even worse,
as the TC weren't doing its job. My point of view is that this group of humans
is contributing and I'm happy to see that happening.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160622/4ff733a5/attachment.pgp>