Open Stack

Adam Spiers <aspiers at suse.com> writes:

> Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote: 
>>Adam Spiers wrote: 
>>>[...]
>>>Sure.  I particularly agree with your point about processes; I think 
>>>the TC (or whoever else volunteers) could definitely help lower the 
>>>barrier to starting up a pop-up team by creating a cookie-cutter 
>>>kind of approach which would quickly set up any required 
>>>infrastructure. For example it could be a simple form or CLI-based 
>>>tool posing questions like the following, where the answers could 
>>>facilitate the bootstrapping process: 
>>>- What is the name of your pop-up team? 
>>>- Please enter a brief description of the purpose of your pop-up team. 
>>>- If you will use an IRC channel, please state it here. 
>>>- Do you need regular IRC meetings? 
>>>- Do you need a new git repository?  [If so, ...] 
>>>- Do you need a new StoryBoard project?  [If so, ...] 
>>>- Do you need a [badge] for use in Subject: headers on openstack-discuss? 
>>>etc.
>>>
>>>The outcome of the form could be anything from pointers to specific 
>>>bits of documentation on how to set up the various bits of 
>>>infrastructure, all the way through to automation of as much of the 
>>>setup as is possible.  The slicker the process, the more agile the 
>>>community could become in this respect. 
>>
>>That's a great idea -- if the pop-up team concept takes on we could 
>>definitely automate stuff. In the mean time I feel like the next step 
>>is to document what we mean by pop-up team, list them, and give 
>>pointers to the type of resources you can have access to (and how to 
>>ask for them). 
>
> Agreed - a quickstart document would be a great first step. 
>
>>In terms of "blessing" do you think pop-up teams should be ultimately 
>>approved by the TC ? On one hand that adds bureaucracy / steps to the 
>>process, but on the other having some kind of official recognition can 
>>help them... 
>>
>>So maybe some after-the-fact recognition would work ? Let pop-up teams 
>>freely form and be listed, then have the TC declaring some of them (if 
>>not all of them) to be of public interest ? 
>
> Yeah, good questions.  The official recognition is definitely 
> beneficial; OTOH I agree that requiring steps up-front might deter 
> some teams from materialising.  Automating these as much as possible 
> would reduce the risk of that. 

What benefit do you perceive to having official recognition?

>
> One challenge I see facing an after-the-fact approach is that any 
> requests for infrastructure (IRC channel / meetings / git repo / 
> Storyboard project etc.) would still need to be approved in advance, 
> and presumably a coordinated approach to approval might be more 
> effective than one where some of these requests could be approved and 
> others denied. 

Isn't the point of these teams that they would be coordinating work
within other existing projects? So I wouldn't expect them to need git
repositories or new IRC channels. Meeting times, yes.

>
> I'm not sure what the best approach is - sorry ;-) 
>

-- 
Doug