Open Stack

Then it might fit the purpose to rename the technical committee to
governance committee or other terms. If we have a technical committee not
investing time to lead in technical evolvement of OpenStack, it just seems
odd to me.

TC should be a place good developers aspired to, not retired to. BTW this
is not a OpenStack-only issue but I see across multiple open source
communities.

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:51 AM Emmet Hikory <persia at shipstone.jp> wrote:

> All,
>     I’ve spent the last few years watching the activities of the
> technical committee , and in recent cycles, I’m seeing a significant
> increase in both members of our community asking the TC to take action
> on things, and the TC volunteering to take action on things in the
> course of internal discussions (meetings, #openstack-tc, etc.).  In
> combination, these trends appear to have significantly increased the
> amount of time that members of the technical committee spend on “TC
> work”, and decreased the time that they spend on other activities in
> OpenStack.  As such, I suggest that the Technical Committee be
> restricted from actually doing anything beyond approval of merges to the
> governance repository.
>
>     Firstly, we select members of the technical committee from amongst
> those of us who have some of the deepest understanding of the entire
> project and frequently those actively involved in multiple projects and
> engaged in cross-project coordination on a regular basis.  Anything less
> than this fails to produce enough name recognition for election.  As
> such, when asking the TC to be responsible for activities, we should
> equally ask whether we wish the very people responsible for the
> efficiency of our collaboration to cease doing so in favor of whatever
> we may have assigned to the TC.
>
>     Secondly, in order to ensure continuity, we need to provide a means
> for rotation of the TC: this is both to allow folk on the TC to pursue
> other activities, and to allow folk not on the TC to join the TC and
> help with governance and coordination.  If we wish to increase the
> number of folk who might be eligible for the TC, we do this best by
> encouraging them to take on activities that involve many projects or
> affect activities over all of OpenStack.  These activities must
> necessarily be taken by those not current TC members in order to provide
> a platform for visibility to allow those doing them to later become TC
> members.
>
>     Solutions to both of these issues have been suggested involving
> changing the size of the TC.  If we decrease the size of the TC, it
> becomes less important to provide mechanisms for new people to develop
> reputation over the entire project, but this ends up concentrating the
> work of the TC to a smaller number of hands, and likely reduces the
> volume of work overall accomplished.  If we increase the size of the TC,
> it becomes less burdensome for the TC to take on these activities, but
> this ends up foundering against the question of who in our community has
> sufficient experience with all aspects of OpenStack to fill the
> remaining seats (and how to maintain a suitable set of folk to provide
> TC continuity).
>
>     If we instead simply assert that the TC is explicitly not
> responsible for any activities beyond governance approvals, we both
> reduce the impact that being elected to the TC has on the ability of our
> most prolific contributors to continue their activities and provide a
> means for folk who have expressed interest and initiative to broadly
> contribute and demonstrate their suitability for nomination in a future
> TC election
>
>     Feedback encouraged
>
> --
> Emmet HIKORY
>
>
>

-- 
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
OpenStack, Kubernetes, CNCF, LF Edge, ONNX, Kubeflow, OpenSDS, Open Service
Broker API, OCP, Hyperledger, ETSI, SNIA, DMTF, W3C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190504/722845ff/attachment-0001.html>