[Openstack-operators] UC WG/Team Requirements

Melvin Hillsman mrhillsman at gmail.com
Thu Jul 13 13:31:00 UTC 2017

Totally agree with you Blair. I should have been more verbose in my
explanation of sending this. We have UC elections coming up, rather
important as everyone knows, being that the UC has gone from 3 appointed to
5 elected. We still have work to do re SIGs and have already taken a couple
actions which we are polishing up announcement regarding. Approving this
document resolves some current needs of the UC in particular as noted from
this week's meeting and does not mitigate the focus to move towards SIGs.

We have a method/process to discuss SIGs going forward and look for that to
be more organic, added to and taken from, over time as we understand SIG
successes and failures specific to our community so do not consider SIGs
for this for right now. Working Groups in the current context are
temporary, once they complete a specific task, they disband - think AUC
Recognition WG. Teams are permanent in that they have long term goals and
offer continued support of the long term goals of the UC - think Product
Team (personally I stopped used Product WG some time ago). Some folks might
ask why Product Working Group is not Product Team and one such reason is
this document not being ratified/approved yet. Unfortunately we are in
between a rock and a hard place with SIGs moving forward but we do not want
to neglect current/previous work in light of SIGs. Hopefully this offers
more understanding and if more information is needed please do ask.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwaite at gmail.com>

> Thanks for sharing Melvin,
> One major point here is that it's not clear how this proposal relates
> to the recent discussion around OpenStack SIGs. It's clear that more
> than a few of us are still struggling to understand intuitively why we
> are calling one thing a Working Group and another a Team, even when
> there are specific some requirements listed against them. Perhaps part
> of the problem is that the monikers themselves convey no meaning? I
> wonder if we could we do away with Team and instead have SIGs and
> Working Groups...?
> Cheers,
> On 13 July 2017 at 07:01, Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > Please take time today to offer any additional
> comments/questions/concerns
> > to the following document -
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r3KwaG-
> SbvaKCuAE52XwPCF7cRGDrNRg6dUhPQWs0vU
> >
> > This document establishes the requirements for current and future UC
> > governed working groups and teams. We need to ensure we have this done
> > before upcoming UC election so your feedback is greatly appreciated.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > OpenStack User Committee
> >
> > (Edgar, Jon, Melvin, Shamail, Shilla)
> --
> Cheers,
> ~Blairo

Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhillsman at gmail.com
mobile: (832) 264-2646

Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20170713/7bc2c303/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list