<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/19 11:23 AM, Sylvain Bauza
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALOCmumJX2w2hwLGCqLNrcjnvhhs5_CCkxVERjQHrJ+SxNfrTA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Chris for asking us questions so we
can clarify our opinions.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 20, 2019
at 3:52 PM Chris Dent <<a
href="mailto:cdent%2Bos@anticdent.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cdent+os@anticdent.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
It's the Campaigning slot of the TC election process,
where members<br>
of the community (including the candidates) are
encouraged to ask<br>
the candidates questions and witness some debate. I
have some<br>
questions.<br>
<br>
First off, I'd like to thank all the candidates for
running and<br>
being willing to commit some of their time. I'd also
like to that<br>
group as a whole for being large enough to force an
election. A<br>
representative body that is not the result of an
election would not<br>
be very representing nor have much of a mandate.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I agree with you on this point.
It's important for OpenStack to have time to discuss
about mandates.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
The questions follow. Don't feel obliged to answer all
of these. The<br>
point here is to inspire some conversation that flows
to many<br>
places. I hope other people will ask in the areas I've
chosen to<br>
skip. If you have a lot to say, it might make sense to
create a<br>
different message for each response. Beware, you might
be judged on<br>
your email etiquette and attention to good email
technique!<br>
<br>
* How do you account for the low number of candidates?
Do you<br>
consider this a problem? Why or why not?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, again, I agree and to be honest, when I only
saw we were only having 4 candidates 8 hours before
the deadline, I said to myself "OK, you love
OpenStack. You think the TC is important. But then,
why aren't you then throwing your hat ?"</div>
<div>We all have opinions, right ? But then, why people
don't want to be in the TC ? Because we don't have a
lot of time for it ? Or because people think the TC
isn't important ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't want to discuss about politics here. But I
somehow see a parallel in between what the TC is and
what the European Union is : both are governances not
fully decision-makers but are there for sharing same
rules and vision.<br>
</div>
<div>If we stop having the TC, what would become
OpenStack ? Just a set of parallel projects with no
common guidance ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fact that a large number of candidacies went
very late (including me) is a bit concerning to me.
How can we become better ? I have no idea but saying
that probably given the time investment it requires,
most of the candidacies were probably holding some
management acceptance before people would propose
their names. Probably worth thinking about how the
investment it requires, in particular given we have
less full-time contributors that can dedicate large
time for governance.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
* Compare and contrast the role of the TC now to 4
years ago. If you<br>
weren't around 4 years ago, comment on the changes
you've seen<br>
over the time you have been around. In either case:
What do you<br>
think the TC role should be now?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4 years ago, we were in the Kilo timeframe. That's
fun you mention this period, because at that exact
time of the year, the TC voted on one of the probably
most important decisions that impacted OpenStack : The
Big Tent reform [1]</div>
<div>Taking a look at this time, I remember frustration
and hard talks but also people committed to change
things.</div>
<div>This decision hasn't changed a lot the existing
service projects that were before the Big Tent, but it
actually created a whole new ecosystem for developers.
It had challenges but it never required to be
abandoned, which means the program is a success.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now the buzz is gone and the number of projects
stable, the TC necessarly has to mutate to a role of
making sure all the projects sustain the same pace and
reliability. Most of the challenges for the TC is now
about defining and applying criterias for ensuring
that all our projects have a reasonable state for
production. If you see my candidacy letter, two of my
main drivers for my nomination are about upgradability
and scalability concerns.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
* What, to you, is the single most important thing the
OpenStack<br>
community needs to do to ensure that packagers,
deployers, and<br>
hobbyist users of OpenStack are willing to
consistently upstream<br>
their fixes and have a positive experience when
they do? What is<br>
the TC's role in helping make that "important
thing" happen?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are two very distinct reasons when a company
decides to downstream-only : either by choice or
because of technical reasons.<br>
</div>
<div>I don't think a lot of companies decide to manage
technical debt on their own by choice. OpenStack is
nearly 9 years old and most of the users know the
price it is.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Consequently, I assume that the reasons are
technical : <br>
</div>
<div>1/ they're running an old version and haven't
upgraded (yet). We have good user stories of large
cloud providers that invested in upgrades (for example
OVH) and see the direct benefit of it. Maybe we can
educate more on the benefits of upgrading frequently.</div>
<div>2/ they think upstreaming is difficult. I'm all
open to hear the barriers they have. For what it's
worth, OpenStack invested a lot in mentoring with the
FirstContact SIG, documentation and Upstream
Institute. There will probably also be a new program
about peer-mentoring and recognition [2] if the
community agrees with the idea. Honestly, I don't know
what do do more. If you really can't upstream but care
about your production, just take a service contract I
guess.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
* If you had a magic wand and could inspire and make a
single<br>
sweeping architectural or software change across
the services,<br>
what would it be? For now, ignore legacy or upgrade
concerns.<br>
What role should the TC have in inspiring and
driving such<br>
changes?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Take me as a fool but I don't think the role of the
TC is to drive architectural decision between
projects.</div>
<div>The TC can help two projects to discuss, the TC can
(somehow) help moderate between two teams about some
architectural concern but certainly not be the driver
of such change.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Is there a particular reason why you feel this way?<br>
<br>
I think the TC is in a great position to have a profound impact on
the architecture of OpenStack, with a caveat.<br>
<br>
I believe if you ask anyone with even a brief history in OpenStack,
you'll dust up some architectural opinions. For example, Jim and
Mohammed have already pointed out a bunch in their responses.
Another example, Melanie and I had a productive discussion today
about how restructuring the architecture of policy enforcement could
significantly improvement usability and security [0], which
certainly isn't specific to keystone or nova. I don't think we have
to look very far to find excellent areas for improvement. As others
have noted, the project is at a point where development and hype
isn't nearly as intense as it was 4 years ago. While contributor
numbers, in a way, reflect project stabilization, I also think it
puts us in a prime position to address some of the architectural
pain points we've grown to live with over the years. I think we can
use the opportunity to make services more consistent, giving
consumers and users a more refined and polished experience, among
other benefits.<br>
<br>
That said, I certainly think if the TC is to _facilitate_ in
architectural decisions, it needs to be done in the open and with
plenty of communication and feedback with the entire community.
Similar to the approach we try and take with community goals.<br>
<br>
I understand there may be a fine line in making decisions of this
nature at the TC level, but I also think it presents numerous
opportunities to communicate and focus efforts in a unified
direction. I see that involvement range from socializing issues to
advocating for sponsorship on a particular initiative to diving into
the problem and helping projects directly.<br>
<br>
<br>
[0]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-keystone/%23openstack-keystone.2019-02-20.log.html#t2019-02-20T18:35:06">http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-keystone/%23openstack-keystone.2019-02-20.log.html#t2019-02-20T18:35:06</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALOCmumJX2w2hwLGCqLNrcjnvhhs5_CCkxVERjQHrJ+SxNfrTA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That doesn't mean the TC can't be technical. We
have goals, for example. But in order to have well
defined goals that are understandable by project
contributors, we also need to have the projects be the
drivers of such architectural changes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
* What can the TC do to make sure that the community
(in its many<br>
dimensions) is informed of and engaged in the
discussions and<br>
decisions of the TC?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You made a very good job in providing TC feedback.
I surely think the TC has to make sure that a regular
weekly feedback is provided.</div>
<div>For decisions that impact projects, I don't really
see how TC members can vote without getting feedback
from the project contributors, so here I see
communication (thru Gerrit at least).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
* How do you counter people who assert the TC is not
relevant?<br>
(Presumably you think it is, otherwise you would
not have run. If<br>
you don't, why did you run?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, I think that is a matter of considering the
TC responsibilities. We somehow need to clarify what
are those responsibilities and I think I voiced on
that above.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
That's probably more than enough. Thanks for your
attention.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I totally appreciate you challenging us. That's
very important that people vote based on opinions
rather than popularity.</div>
<div>-Sylvain<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a
href="https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html</a></div>
<div>[2] <a
href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636956/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636956/</a><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
-- <br>
Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ <a
href="https://anticdent.org/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://anticdent.org/</a><br>
freenode: cdent
tw: @anticdent</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>