Open Stack

Chris Dent wrote:
> [...]
> But lets move on to reflecting one of the other concerns I've
> heard:
> 
> In actual behaviors and intent, how is this different from what
> we've had before? What are we changing, other than the name, so that
> people will feel inclined to participate? Or is the hope that by
> causing this moment of attention we'll provide an opportunity for
> people to take note, one that they wouldn't have felt otherwise
> without the naming shift?

I'd say that this is not significantly different from what we had. When
Melvin and I discussed this, we considered just saying "from now on,
workgroups are not attached to a governance body, and are listed in the
same page". We didn't opt for that big-bang strategy, for three reasons.

First, we realized that it would likely be an uphill battle to get
(top-down) buy-in in every governance body to remove the link between
workgroups and their parent body. It's a lot easier to just ask
(bottom-up) existing workgroups if they are interested in migrating to a
new concept.

Second, we realized that /some/ workgroups will very likely prefer to
stay directly attached to a specific governance body. For example the
Ops Tags workgroup, or the AUC recognition workgroup, are very tied to
the User Committee and will probably prefer to stay where they are.

Third, in a busy community like OpenStack it's hard to communicate
widely a change without making it very visible. Giving a new name to the
concept (even if the only change is the more obvious statement that
everyone is welcome) helps getting the word out there.

So you could say the SIG concept is just a marketing and a
seamless-transition artifact, helping to break artificial barriers to
cross-community participation.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)