Open Stack

# Welcome New TC Members

Main news to report about the OpenStack Technical Committee (TC) is that
the elections have finished and there are some new members. The three
incumbents that ran returned for another year, meaning three new
people join. There's more information in a [superuser
article](http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-tc-pike-elections/).
Welcome and congratulations to everyone.

After each election a new chair is selected. Any member of the TC may
be the chair, self-nomination is done by posting a review. The traditional
chair, Thierry, has posted [his
nomination](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/514553/1).

A [welcome
message](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2017-October/001477.html)
was posted to the TC mailing list with information and references for
how things work.

# TC Participation

At last Thursday's [office
hours](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-10-19.log.html#t2017-10-19T15:01:02)
Emilien asked, as a thought experiment, what people thought of the
idea of TC term limits. In typical office hours fashion, this quickly
went off into a variety of topics, some only tangentially related to
term limits.

To summarize, incompletely, the pro-reason is: Make room and
opportunities for new leadership. The con-reason is: Maintain a degree
of continuity.

This led to some discussion of the value of "history and baggage" and
whether such things are a keel or anchor in managing the nautical
metaphor of OpenStack. We did not agree, which is probably good
because somewhere in the middle is likely true.

Things then circled back to the nature of the TC: court of last resort
or something with a more active role in executive leadership. If the former,
who does the latter? Many questions related to significant change are
never resolved because it is not clear who does these things.

There's a camp that says "the people who step up to do it". In my experience
this is a statement made by people in a position of privilege and may
(intentionally or otherwise) exclude others or lead to results which have
unintended consequences.

This then led to meandering about the nature of facilitation.

(Like I said, a variety of topics.)

We did not resolve these questions except to confirm that the only way
to address these things is to engage with not just the discussion, but
also the work.

# OpenStack Technical Blog

Josh Harlow showed up with [an
idea](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-10-19.log.html#t2017-10-19T18:19:30).
An OpenStack equivalent of the [kubernetes
blog](http://blog.kubernetes.io/), focused on interesting technology
in OpenStack. This came up again on
[Friday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-10-20.log.html#t2017-10-20T18:13:01).

It's clear that anyone and everyone _could_ write their own blogs and
syndicate to the [OpenStack planet](http://planet.openstack.org/) but
this doesn't have the same panache and potential cadence as an
official thing _might_. It comes down to people having the time. Eking
out the time for this blog, for example, can be challenging.

Since this is the second [week in a
row](https://anticdent.org/tc-report-42.html) that Josh showed up with
an idea, I wonder what next week will bring?

-- 
Chris Dent                      (⊙＿⊙')         https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent