Open Stack

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:30 AM, gordon chung <gord at live.ca> wrote:
> hi,
>
> as there are many candidates this TC election, i figured i'd ask a
> question to better understand the candidates from the usual sales pitch
> in self-nominations. hopefully, this will give some insights into the
> candidates for those who haven't voted yet. obviously, the following is
> completely optional. :)
>
> i initially asked this to John Dickinson[1] in his self-nomination. i'd
> like to open this up to everyone. the (re-worded) question is:
>
> the TC has historically been a reactive council that lets others ask for
> change and acts as the final approver. do you believe the TC should be a
> proactive committee that initiates change and if yes, to what scope?
> more generally, what are some specific issues you'd like the TC address
> in the coming year?

I believe I addressed this in my candidacy email, but for posterity I'll
talk about it a bit more here.

I believe that the TC will always need to be reactive to some extent,
however it should also strive to be more proactive than it currently is.

The big tent is a good thing IMO, but needs some work. Many projects
struggle with finding the common ways to do OpenStack-y things
(upgrades, microversions, integration testing, etc), and I think the TC
should work to make that easier. Most (all?) of the current and
nominated TC members know how to code, and (hopefully, heh) all
of them are familiar with how OpenStack works. They should use their
skills and knowledge to help projects become part of a coherent
OpenStack - building common tools and frameworks that projects
can adopt to be more like other projects.

tl;dr we assert OpenStack is "one framework of collaborating components",
and not "a loose connection of disconnected projects".[0] From the outside,
it doesn't always look like that. The TC should work to help fix that.

// jim

[0] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/principles.html#one-openstack