Open Stack

On 5/09/19 7:36 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> On 05/09/19 19:33 +0900, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>> ---- On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:04:39 +0900 Chris Dent 
>> <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote ----
>> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> >
>> > > So maybe we still have the same expectations, but we are 
>> definitely reducing
>> > > our velocity... Would you say we need to better align our 
>> expectations with
>> > > our actual speed? Or that we should reduce our expectations 
>> further, to drive
>> > > velocity further down?
>> >
>> > We should slow down enough that the vendors and enterprises start to
>> > suffer. If they never notice, then it's clear we're trying too hard
>> > and can chill out.
>>
>> +1 on this but instead of slow down and make vendors suffer we need 
>> the proper
>> way to notify or make them understand about the future cutoff effect 
>> on OpenStack
>> as software. I know we have been trying every possible way but I am 
>> sure there are
>> much more managerial steps can be taken.  I expect Board of Director 
>> to come forward
>> on this as an accountable entity. TC should raise this as high 
>> priority issue to them (in meetings,
>> joint leadership meeting etc).
>>
>> I am sure this has been brought up before, can we make OpenStack 
>> membership company
>> to have a minimum set of developers to maintain upstream. With the 
>> current situation, I think
>> it make sense to ask them to contribute manpower also along with 
>> membership fee.  But again
>> this is more of BoD and foundation area.
> 
> +1
> 
> IIUC Gold Membership in the Foundation provides voting privileges at a 
> cost of $50-200K/year and Corporate Sponsorship provides these plus 
> various marketing benefits at a cost of $10-25K/year.  So far as I can 
> tell there is not a requirement of a commitment of contributors and 
> maintainers with the exception of the (currently closed) Platinum 
> Membership, which costs $500K/year and requires at least 2 FTE 
> equivalents contributing to OpenStack. 

Even this incredibly minimal requirement was famously not met for years 
by one platinum member, and a (different) platinum member was accepted 
without ever having contributed upstream in the past or apparently ever 
intending to in the future.

What I'm saying is that if this a the mechanism we want to use to drive 
contributions, I can tell you now how it's gonna work out.

The question we should be asking ourselves is why companies see value in 
being sponsors of the foundation but not in contributing upstream, and 
how we convince them of the value of the latter.

One initiative the TC started on this front is this:

https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/upstream-investment-opportunities/index.html

(BTW we could use help in converting the outdated Help Most Wanted 
entries to this format. Volunteers welcome.)

cheers,
Zane.

> In general I see requirements 
> for annual cash expenditure to the Foundation, as for membership in any 
> joint commercial enterprise, but little that ensures the availability of 
> skilled labor for ongoing maintenance of our projects.
> 
> -- Tom Barron
> 
>>
>> I agree on ttx proposal to reduce the TC number to 9 or 7, I do not 
>> think this will make any
>> difference or slow down on any of the TC activity. 9 or 7 members are 
>> enough in TC.
>>
>> As long as we get PTL(even without an election) we are in a good 
>> position. This time only
>> 7 leaderless projects (6 actually with Cyborg PTL missing to propose 
>> nomination in election repo and only on ML) are
>> not so bad number. But yes this is a sign of taking action before it 
>> goes into more worst situation.
>>
>> -gmann
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
>> > freenode: cdent
>>
>>
>