On 1/17/19 11:11 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[with my jester's cap on]
Hey, Foundation folks, I have an idea for swag at the next summit. ;-) And so this isn't a completely content-less email, I will provide my perspective on the actual topic of the thread too. Reading the document, it seems to me that it describes less a "Technical" Committee and more a "Governance" Committee. It's right there in first two headings, and I would argue that the collaboration and maybe scope sections fit better with that too. I will grant that the release goals don't really fit my theory as those are technical first and foremost, but they're also sort of the exception not the rule. When I vote for members of a body with "technical" in its name, I expect those people to be driving the technical direction of the project. Per the document, and based on my past observation of the TC, I would say that it has actively avoided driving the technical direction of OpenStack in favor of the bottom-up philosophy mentioned elsewhere in this thread. That has always created some cognitive dissonance for me. I feel like a lot of the discussion in this thread has been around whether the TC should be a primarily technical body or a primarily governance body. While I don't want to get lost bikeshedding over naming, I hadn't previously considered that maybe the TC isn't (and shouldn't be?) an actual technical group. I'm not sure I have a definite answer for that right now though, so consider this a WIP opinion and maybe a useful alternate way of looking at the question. -Ben