[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-12

David Moreau Simard dmsimard at redhat.com
Wed Mar 21 15:51:43 UTC 2018

In case people have missed it, Jim Blair sent an email recently to
shed some light on where Zuul is headed [1].

[1]: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128396.html

David Moreau Simard
Senior Software Engineer | OpenStack RDO

dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-12.html
> This week's TC Report goes off in the weeds a bit with the editorial
> commentary from yours truly. I had trouble getting started, so had
> to push myself through some thinking by writing stuff that at least
> for the last few weeks I wouldn't normally be including in the
> summaries. After getting through it, I realized that the reason I
> was struggling is because I haven't been including these sorts of
> things. Including them results in a longer and more meandering report
> but it is more authentically my experience, which was my original
> intention.
> # Zuul Extraction and the Difficult Nature of Communication
> Last [Tuesday
> Morning](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-13.log.html#t2018-03-13T17:22:38)
> we had some initial discussion about Zuul being extracted from
> OpenStack governance as a precursor to becoming part of the CI/CD
> strategic area being born elsewhere in the OpenStack Foundation.
> Then on
> [Thursday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:08:06)
> we revisited the topic, especially as it related to how we
> communicate change in the community and how we invite participation
> in making decisions about change. In this case by "community" we're
> talking about anything under the giant umbrella of "stuff associated
> with the OpenStack Foundation".
> Plenty of people expressed that though they were not surprised by
> the change, it was because they are insiders and could understand
> how some, who are not, might be surprised by what seemed like a big
> change. This led to addressing the immediate shortcomings and
> clarifying the history of the event.
> There was also
> [concern](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:27:22)
> that some of the reluctance to talk openly about the change appeared
> to stem from needing to preserve the potency of a Foundation marketing
> release.
> I [expressed some
> frustration](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:36:50):
> "...as usual, we're getting caught up in
> details of a particular event (one that in the end we're all happy
> to see happen), rather than the general problem we saw with it
> (early transparency etc). Solving the immediate problem is easy, but
> since we _keep doing it_, we've got a general issues to resolve."
> We went round and round about the various ways in which we have tried
> and failed to do good communication in the past, and while we make
> some progress, we fail to establish a pattern. As Doug [pointed
> out](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:41:33),
> no method can be 100% successful, but if we pick a method and stick to
> it, people can learn that method.
> We have a cycle where we not only sometimes communicate poorly but
> we also communicate poorly about that poor communication. So when I
> come round to another week of writing this report, and am reminded
> that these issues persist and I am once again communicating about
> them, it's frustrating. Communicating, a lot, is generally a good
> thing, but if things don't change as a result, that can be a strain.
> If I'm still writing these things in a year's time, and we haven't
> managed to achieve at least a bit more grace, consistency, and
> transparency in the ways that we share information within and
> between groups (including, and maybe especially, the Foundation
> executive wing) in the wider community, it will be a shame and I will
> have a sad.
> In a somewhat related and good sign, there is [great
> thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2018-March/014994.html)
> on the operators list that raises the potential of merging the Ops
> Meeting and the PTG into some kind of "OpenStack Community Working
> Gathering".
> # Encouraging Upstream Contribution
> On
> [Friday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-16.log.html#t2018-03-16T14:29:21),
> tbarron raised some interesting questions about how the summit talk
> selection process might relate to the [four
> opens](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/opens.html).  The
> talk eventually led to a positive plan to try bring some potential
> contributors upstream in advance of summit as, well as to work to
> create more clear guidelines for track chairs.
> # Executive Power
> I had a question at [this morning's office
> hour](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-20.log.html#t2018-03-20T09:00:00),
> related to some work in the API-SIG that hasn't had a lot of traction,
> about how best to explain how executive power is gained and spent
> in a community where we intentionally spread power around a lot. As
> with communication above, this is a topic that comes up a fair
> amount, and investigating the underlying patterns can be
> instructive.
> My initial reaction on the topic was the fairly standard (but in
> different words): If this is important to you, step up and make it
> happen.
> I think, however, that when we discuss these things we fail to take
> enough account of the nature of OpenStack as a professional open
> source environment. Usually, nonhierarchical, consensual
> collaborations are found in environments where members represent
> their own interests.
> In OpenStack our interactions are sometimes made more complex (and
> alienating) by virtue of needing to represent the interests of a
> company or other financial interest (including the interest of
> keeping our nice job) while at the same time not having the recourse
> of being able to complain to someone's boss when they are difficult
> (because that boss is part of a different hierarchy than the one you
> operate in). We love (rightfully so) the grand project which is
> OpenStack, and want to preserve and extend as much as possible the
> beliefs in things that make it feel unique, like "influence tokens".
> But we must respect that these things are collectively agreed
> hallucinations that require regular care and feeding, and balance
> them against the surrounding context which is not operating with
> those agreements.
> Further, those of us who have leeway to spend time building
> influence tokens are operating from a position of privilege. One of
> the ways we sustain that position is by behaving as if those tokens
> are more readily available to more people than they really are.
> /me wipes brow
> # TC Elections Coming
> The next round of TC elections will be coming up in late April. If
> you're thinking about it, but feel like you need more information
> about what it might entail, please feel free to contact me. I'm sure
> most of the other TC members would be happy to share their thoughts
> as well.
> --
> Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           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

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list