[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [tc] Who is allowed to vote for TC candidates

Anne Gentle annegentle at justwriteclick.com
Fri May 1 22:25:01 UTC 2015


On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2015-05-01 14:50:33 -0700:
> > I purposely didn't email the general mailing list since I didn't want to
> > cross-post, hard to have these discussions across verticals and choosing
> > one list = hearing one community - those subscribed to the developer
> > mailing list.
> >
> > So I'm not assuming anything, it seems some are suggesting that Operators
> > get into code review to quantify their role as an engaged Operator. Is
> that
> > a correct statement? Just want to make sure I'm hearing correctly. I try
> to
> > avoid absolutes but personally speaking for the record, I don't believe
> the
> > answer lies with asking Operators to become code reviewers on top of
> > everthing else they're doing in order for them to have a voice in the TC
> > elections. If code reviews are being suggested (again, assuming the
> > assumption is correct for the sake of making my point), technical
> > contribution extends far beyond uploading and reviewing code. This
> > alternate means to gain ATC status seems like a potential candidate for
> > those who want to review code but not for those who are day-to-day
> > operators engaging with the community.
>
> No, that's not what is being proposed at all.
>
> I am trying to point out that there is already a way to gain
> ATC status without having to commit anything to a git repository
> (code or otherwise), and so coming up with a way to work within the
> existing system may achieve the original goal of allowing some
> operators to vote for TC candidates, without having to change our
> voting rules.
>
> I want Operators to review *specs*, which aren't code but are *plans*
> for code. Having feedback on those plans, either indicating that
> they are good or are missing the mark, would be really valuable.
> We happen to use the same tool for reviewing those specs as for
> reviewing code, but they are written in plain text and the review
> tool is a web page so it doesn't require you to install anything
> or work with code in any way.
>
> Code review seems further outside of the wheelhouse of most operators,
> so while I would welcome it, I don't really expect it and I don't
> think it's necessary.
>
> Granting ATC status to folks who aren't committing to repositories
> is up to the PTL of each project, and contributing to spec reviews
> is an obvious way to demonstrate a level of engagement I would
> expect (as a former PTL), project leads to be looking for. We have
> a couple of examples of folks who have done this already, so I also
> know that it can work for at least some people.
>
> I'm also interested in understanding more directly why you think
> having an impact on the TC membership will have a direct effect on
> any of the work of the projects. Can you comment more on that?
>
> >
> > Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are
> > meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input?
>

Tom's thread on openstack-operators is where that happened.
Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-meetup
Sched:
https://libertydesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/design+summit/Ops


>
> There is an entire track of operator-led and focused discussions
> (I believe this is the third summit where we have had an "ops
> track").  It looks like [1] may be the original post where Tom
> started gathering ideas for this summit, but I hope someone else
> more directly involved corrects me if there is a better starting
> point at this stage in the planning.
>
> Doug
>
> [1]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-March/006607.html
>
> >
> > Given this conversation involves the Operator community as well, I went
> > ahead and CC'd them to hopefully capture their specific thoughts/ideas on
> > the subject.
> >
> > Mahalo,
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > *Adam Lawson*
> >
> > AQORN, Inc.
> > 427 North Tatnall Street
> > Ste. 58461
> > Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
> > Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
> > International: +1 302-387-4660
> > Direct: +1 916-246-2072
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Fainberg <
> morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see
> > >> > what is being proposed and give input.
> > >> >
> > >> > Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be
> the
> > >> > operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the
> equivalent
> > >> > operator/user definition is less clear.
> > >>
> > >> I think spec review participation is a great example of where it would
> > >> make sense to grant extra ATC status.  If someone provides valuable
> spec
> > >> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to
> > >> approve their ATC status if proposed.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is
> > > looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec
> > > process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the
> contributions.
> > >
> > > This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation.
> > >
> > > --Morgan
> > >
> > >
> > >> --
> > >> Russell Bryant
> > >>
> > >>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> > >> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150501/278b3729/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list