Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2019-01-17 14:20:10 -0600 (-0600), Ben Nemec wrote:
> [...]
>> Reading the document, it seems to me that it describes less a
>> "Technical" Committee and more a "Governance" Committee.
> [...]
> 
> I mused similarly some time back (in an ML post I'm having trouble
> finding now) that I consider the choice of naming for the "technical
> committee" unfortunate, as I see our role being one of community
> management and arbitration. Section 4.13.b.i of the OSF bylaws
> describes the responsibilities and powers of the TC thusly:
> 
> "The Technical Committee shall have the authority to manage the
> OpenStack Project, including the authority to determine the scope of
> the OpenStack Technical Committee Approved Release..." (the latter
> is specifically with regard to application of the OpenStack
> trademark for products)

This comes back to the original foundation of the... ahem... Foundation.

We used to have a "Project Policy Board" that covered it all. When the 
Foundation was formed, we wanted to make sure the open source project 
would be governed by its contributors, and not by the Foundation board 
of Directors.

So the PPB's rights and duties were split between the Board of Directors 
(to stay out of technical matters) and a "technical committee". A better 
naming would have been "open source project governance group" or 
"upstream matters decisions group" (everything upstream from the release 
of the software). "Technical" is a pretty simplistic way of describing 
it, if only because there are "technical" things on the downstream side, 
like what the User Committee covers, or the interoperability programs.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)