[tc] Questions for TC Candidates

Alexandra Settle a.settle at outlook.com
Wed Feb 20 17:20:05 UTC 2019


Hi Chris,

Thanks for getting us started :) replies inline below.

> * How do you account for the low number of candidates? Do you
>   consider this a problem? Why or why not?

Change is inevitable, and in the last 3 years (distinctly since the 
Boston summit)
there have been massive changes to our community. OpenStack went from being
the new hotness to becoming a stable, secure open source project that is 
well
respected in the open source community and that was reflected by the amount
of people contributing to the projects.

I see the low number of candidates for the Train TC election as a direct 
reflection
these changes.

While a position on the TC still garners a high level of respect from peers
and employers, I have seen a distinct decline in the push for leadership
positions from large-scale investors, due to OpenStack's stability and
the resulting decline for large changes to be made to OpenStack as a 
product.

Is this a problem? No. Not if we view this as a new start. Defining who are
are now as a stable open source product will set us apart from communities
that wish to continue to ride the success high.

> * Compare and contrast the role of the TC now to 4 years ago. If you
>   weren't around 4 years ago, comment on the changes you've seen
>   over the time you have been around. In either case: What do you
>   think the TC role should be now?

The TC has always been a position of governance that is (debatably)
clearly defined as an elected group that provides technical leadership for
OpenStack as a whole. I believe it is not the question of what the TC is,
but rather, what is the "technical guidance" that the TC provides, and
how that has evolved.

Four (4) years ago, OpenStack was in a different place in the product 
life cycle.
The hype was high, and we had buy-in from a wide range of investors coming
from all different parts of the technology industry.

My experience with the TC then was more of a "governing" body helping to 
shape
an incredibly fast growing community and product, whereas now I see it more
as a mediation, communication, and community platform that has a focus on
technical issues.

> * What, to you, is the single most important thing the OpenStack
>   community needs to do to ensure that packagers, deployers, and
>   hobbyist users of OpenStack are willing to consistently upstream
>   their fixes and have a positive experience when they do? What is
>   the TC's role in helping make that "important thing" happen?

As my experience stems directly from documentation, I genuinely believe
that this is part of the ticket. Speaking as a communicator and a 
collaborator,
I believe we have along the way lost touch with defining a minimum barrier
to entry.

When I started in 2014, I was not particularly technically minded. I had 
worked
at Red Hat for 2 years, and my experience had enabled me to understand
"Cloud" and XML. I was hired by Rackspace with the proviso that, "We 
need good
writers, we can teach you the technology." As a result, (and with some 
help) I found
it easy and accessible to begin contributing and I've been here since.

To be able to build documentation today, as a new comer, I would need to 
install
package dependencies for each repository. I have to read at least 2 
different
contributor guides to get started. And we still are yet to really open our
world to our Windows user friends. Installing a package dep isn't hard 
or it is time
consuming, but understanding and knowing what they. I believe we need to 
be mindful of the time people
have. Whether or not they are working with OpenStack as a part of their
employment, or if it is in their spare time.

> * What can the TC do to make sure that the community (in its many
>   dimensions) is informed of and engaged in the discussions and
>   decisions of the TC?

This is tough, because there are already so many ways that the TC
engages with community and I think that's brilliant. The strong presence
on the discuss ML, the ability to join the IRC channels, and the genuine
interest each TC member has in open discussion.

By most standards, this is an incredibly active and public group and I do
not wish to criticise it, only encourage what we have - and if new ways of
communicating are requested, that we actively seek adoption to ensure
we are including everyone.

> * How do you counter people who assert the TC is not relevant?
>   (Presumably you think it is, otherwise you would not have run. If
>   you don't, why did you run?)
This relates to my answer to your first question, OpenStack has undergone
massive changes not only in community but in focus. It is common that
when things change, governing bodies fail to change quickly enough.
I can understand how people would come to this conclusion.

However, the TC is changing and that is evident by the large number of
TC members who stood down this election and the number of those
that have elected to stand for Train. I find the challenge of ensuring that
the TC remains relevant to be an important part of what I stand for as
a candidate. This means adapting to more changes in the future.

>
> That's probably more than enough. Thanks for your attention.

I'd say that's probably more than enough from me too. Thanks
for your questions, hopefully my answers are equally insightful :)

Cheers,

Alex




More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list