[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18
maishsk at maishsk.com
Wed May 3 07:44:49 UTC 2017
Chris - I am sure that this was said before (I do recall a mail last
week on the mailing list after you sent it out).
Thank you - this is awesome!
A great recap - please continue doing this!!
On 03/05/17 0:46, Chris Dent wrote:
> # Intro
> Feedback from last week's first attempt at a weekly overview of TC
> activity was positive enough to continue. Suggestions on how to make
> it more useful welcome. Main change this time is that I've added
> some information on stuff happened outside the meeting, a link to
> the meeting minutes, and a section on stuff we talked about last
> week that we said we'd pick up later but haven't yet.
> # Prior to the Meeting
> ## Communications
> Shortly after producing the first version of this newsletter last
> week I was approach by Flavio who reminded me that there has been a
> communications working group for the TC that had plans to provide
> regular updates on the state of things TC. We agreed that such a
> thing should still happen, that I ought to be involved, but that I
> would probably still to do this, so that I could editorialize freely
> if I wished.
> Then in discussion of dropping the regular meetings[^1] it came up
> that if we do that it will be very important to have plenty of
> structured communication to the mailing list to replace some of the
> cadence marking that the meeting provides, something the TC chair
> might provide . As I'm typing this, this week's meeting has started
> and it is clear (by the immediate rush of discussion) the topic is
> of dropping the meetings is going to a big deal and if followed
> through will be a significant shakeup to how interactions happen
> within the TC and between the TC and everyone else. It is especially
> important for people who are not on the TC but want to interact with
> it regularly in a conversational way. If you have thoughts on this,
> read and respond to[^1].
> ## Draft Vision for the TC[^0]
> This is mostly sitting idle, awaiting feedback from sessions in
> Boston. The idea is to use the vision to establish some goals for
> the TC and OpenStack. If you're interested or invested in that
> future, your feedback is important (on the review, in email, in the
> survey that was sent out, or in the sessions next week). You might
> look at what's there and think "what is all this fantasizing?". If
> that's your reaction you should say so, and say what you think
> should be talked about instead. Or you might love it. If you do, you
> could say why. That would be useful.
> [^0]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/>
> # This Week's Meeting
> Minutes and Log:
> ## Killing the Meeting[^1]
> As mentioned above we leapt right into talking about killing the
> meeting. Wide variety of opinions on what function the meeting is
> providing in the first place, thus a broad selection of suggestions
> on what can be done instead of the meeting to serve those functions.
> Eventually we realized we weren't getting anywhere and there was a
> motion to move the discussion to email because:
> * it would be visible there to everyone
> * gerrit is a poor medium for exploratory or expansive discussion
> * email can be digested at whatever pace the reader requires
> There were some ideas on how to make sure a thread moves forward to
> a conclusion. A regular summary and reality check of "is this where
> we are" every small number of days is a useful idea.
> [^1]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459848/>
> ## Not Making Decisions Synchronously[^2]
> This is related to killing the meetings; the idea is that making
> decisions synchronously excludes everyone who cannot be there at
> that specific moment in time or who cannot digest the language
> quickly enough to participate at full speed in a synchronous
> environment. There's some confusion over whether this should be a
> goal for just the TC or the entire OpenStack community. We
> eventually had to punt on this because we didn't really know. The
> conversation will move to the review.
> (In my observations of the TC for the past couple of years, this is
> a common pattern. There's often lack of clarity on intent of a
> resolution or other proposal. What are the real problems it is
> trying to address, or the environments it is trying to create?
> People have very different interpretations and when it gets
> difficult or unclear, rather than reaching the bottom of the
> difference, the conversation is shifted to another time or medium.
> Often this is due to time constraints, but frequently the topic is
> never rejoined so incomplete understandings accumulate in a massive
> [^2]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460946/>
> ## Change the target for this goal to uWSGI not Apache mod_wsgi[^3]
> General agreement about doing this change, not a big deal, but some
> concern about changing a cycle goal in the middle of the cycle
> ("moving the goal posts"). Agreement was that changing details of
> implementation are not the same thing as changing the goal
> (especially when it is a simplification) so it is okay as long as
> the change is reflected in the doc, not just the git history.
> [^3]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460951/>
> ## More on maintenance-mode
> There's a newish tag called status:maintenance-mode which means that
> a project is receiving limited attention for a period of time.
> There's a proposal[^4] that the TC should become core on such a
> project to make sure there are people to handle urgent matters. The
> question is whether this is necessary since:
> * the TC can get those privileges at any time on any project when
> there is an urgent matter
> * being in maintenance-mode is supposed to mean there is sufficient
> attention from project team members for urgent matters, if not
> the project is abandoned
> This turned out more contentious and confused than expected and it
> too was punted to the review[^4].
> [^4]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460963/>
> ## Open Discussion
> The above filled pretty much the whole hour, suggesting that perhaps
> we all have a lot more to say to one another than a single hour
> allows. That was acknowledged and suggestions were made that we
> really need to use email more and better, even though it can be
> challenging. That is, we need to level up our email skills.
> To help ensure more talking to one another and do a bit of near-term
> planning, a TC gathering will happen in Boston late next week.
> Evidently I will be spit-balling, and no one will be sitting near
> # Dropped Stuff
> _A section of reminders of things we said we'd talk about more but
> haven't yet._
> ## OpenStack moving too fast and too slow
> At last week's meeting, while discussing the findings from the user
> survey there was discussion[^t] of
>> the complicated problem of OpenStack moving both
>> too fast and too slow at the same time, depending on who was
>> looking. And the difficulty with lack of centralized control over
>> the technical direction of OpenStack and (probably most importantly)
>> the application of resources.
> that was supposed to move the mailing list[^m]. As far as I can see
> it did not. dfisher have you got the cycles to pick that up again
> here on the list? Or if not you, maybe mordred, fungi or dhellman?
> If it was already discussed, my apologies for losing it, can someone
> point it out to me?
> # Colophon
> This is an opinionated overview of Technical Committee activity from
> my perspective. As such it is subjective and potentially wrong
> enough to cause disagreements. That's a good thing if it leads to
> discussions that make things better or more correct.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev