[openstack-dev] TC candidacy

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Wed Oct 5 06:30:40 UTC 2016


On 03/10/16 23:25 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, Clay Gerrard wrote:
>
>>I just re-read your announcement - and I couldn't be happier you're running
>>:D
>
>a) Glad to hear it.
>
>b) It's a shame these email threads didn't start last week. I
>suspect many of the people reading have already voted. I think the
>conversations are still valuable, both for the people who haven't
>voted and to shape future discussions. It's making more things more
>visible, and that's good.

FWIW, I think it's better to start these discussions when the candidacy period
is over. As a voter, I always ask questions (or read other voter's questions
before casting my vote). This might not be true for everyone, though.

Asking questions during the candidacy period might affect other candidates too
(in a good or bad way), I believe.

That said, I'd like to also thank Clay for asking all the questions this time
around. :D

Flavio

>>I was so surprised at the fallout from your suggestion that the TC should
>>actively engage in more broadcasting of important topics [1] to bring in
>>more voices from the community early!?  Links to IRC logs and Gerrit commit
>>history seemed to totally miss the point?
>
>Yes, I found that surprising too. To be fair I think it probably has
>a lot to do with different people's different communication styles.
>For some people IRC logs and gerrit are great. For others, not so
>much. This is one of the reasons for insisting that the TC have a
>mixture of voices and opinions. It can be very easy to become
>habituated to believing that the norm works for everyone, when it
>could just be you for whom it is working.
>
>>I'm curious if any other discussions or questions on the mailing list have
>>excited or frustrated you in the past week?  Is there any specific goals
>>you have for a one year term on the TC - or do you think more clarity on
>>past "perceived agreements" and a better focus on visibility and
>>communication is the more important thing to fix first?
>
>All that is important, and (transferring gordc's question over here)
>better communication will certainly enhance the TC's capability as a
>responsive (seems a better term than reactive) representative body.
>Good communication is effectively a requirement for doing existing
>and future work correctly.
>
>Where I want to see the TC be proactive is a long list. A sample is
>below. The reason I think the TC should take a lead on these is because
>the issues need attention from a group that prioritizes the entire
>community, not just one project, and the members of that group must have
>the time to give real attention to the issues. Very few people in
>the community are licensed to legitimately use time in that fashion.
>
>Some ideas other candidates have already stated:
>
>* Driving community-wide goals (for example Python 3 support sooner than
>  later).
>
>* Building bridges with other communities in similar spaces (for
>  example our pals in k8s).
>
>I hope that neither of these are controversial. They are fundamental for
>the long term health of the community and the project.
>
>Some notions that might be subject to some disagreement:
>
>* Putting some strength in working groups like arch-wg and api-wg so
>  we can start modernizing in general and in some cases correcting
>  past mistakes.
>
>* Concentrating more on contributor experience. Not at the expense
>  of user experience, but in addition to. I think part of the role
>  of the TC should be something akin to a union rep. Corporate driven
>  open source is weird. We need to acknowledge that it presents some
>  challenges. We've seen some discussion dancing around the edges of
>  this topic in the review of the principles document linked from [1].
>
>* Balance the needs of existing users against the needs of the users
>  we haven't yet acquired somewhat in favor of the many more users yet
>  to come. Too often we use existing users as an excuse to not make an
>  improvement. This is not to say we should actively punish existing
>  users but rather that there a multiple avenues to smooth transitions
>  beyond simply avoiding them.
>
>* Put some subjectivity back into the project evaluation process.
>  The big tent was designed to make acceptance into the OpenStack
>  community more objective. That's admirable in some ways, but has led
>  to confusion about the identity of OpenStack. The thing is that
>  taste matters. OpenStack needs to have opinions about what
>  OpenStack is and does. We need humans to articulate those opinions
>  and then act on them by sometimes saying yes and sometimes saying
>  no. That's hard work but it pays dividends not just in community
>  cohesion but also in product cohesion. This will require (as
>  others have stated) making a real effort to set some goals on a 1, 2
>  and 5 year timetable. Where do we want to be? How do we get there?
>  What are our subjective assertions about how things should be at each
>  of those stages.
>
>* And because it needs to be said somewhere: I'm pretty okay with this
>  whole golang thing. Requiring homogeneity is a sure fire way to
>  limit innovation and kill any spirit of experimentation and
>  exploration. We want the OpenStack community to be a place of
>  constant learning. People who aren't learning will go elsewhere to
>  do so. Do we want to lose them?
>
>While I have opinions on all these things, and I will defend those
>opinions with vigor, I want to be actively disagreed with. Active
>debate is how we reach strong and reasonable compromises. I don't
>want to impose my vision on OpenStack but I do want to be sure that
>the vision we enact has been subject to strenuous critique.
>
>I'm very encouraged by the large number of candidates this time around.
>Not just that there are a lot of us but that so many are saying "okay,
>we need to kick it up a notch and _do_ stuff". Without that attitude
>none of the issues listed above will be addressed. It can be easy to
>lazily think of the TC as the organization that safeguards the status
>quo. That needs to stop. The world outside OpenStack is moving forward
>and changing, OpenStack needs to move and change too.
>
>Thanks for prompting this.
>
>>1. This is a great example how much this attitude of "full contact
>>community engagement" is *needed* and how much it's *lacking* with the
>>current set of representatives ->
>>http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103223.html -
>>not surprisingly it took someone from "the outside" to make it happen!
>
>-- 
>Chris Dent               ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)        https://anticdent.org/
>freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent

>__________________________________________________________________________
>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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161005/bbe58462/attachment.pgp>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list