Open Stack

Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> 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.

    OpenStack has a rich governance structure, including at least the
Foundation Board, the User Committee, and the Technical Committee.  Within
the context of governance, the Technical Committee is responsible for both
technical governance of OpenStack and governance of the technical community.
It is within that context that "Technical Committee" is the name.

    I also agree that it is important that members of the Technical Committee
are able to invest time to lead in the technical evolution of OpenStack, and
this is a significant reason that I propose that the activities of the TC be
restricted, precisely so that being elected does not mean that one no longer
is able to invest time for this.

> 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.

    While I agree that it is valuable to have a target for the aspirations
of good developers, I am not convinced that OpenStack can be healthy if we
restrict our aspirations to nine seats.  From my perspective, this causes
enough competition that many excellent folk may never be elected, and that
some who wish to see their aspirations fufilled may focus activity in other
communities where it may be easier to achieve an arbitrary title.

    Instead, I suggest that developers should aspire to be leaders in the
OpenStack comunuity, and be actively involved in determining the future
technical direction of OpenStack.  I just don't think there needs to be
any correlation between this and the mechanics of reviewing changes to the
governance repository.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY