Hi Chris, Thanks for getting us started :) replies inline below.
* How do you account for the low number of candidates? Do you consider this a problem? Why or why not?
Change is inevitable, and in the last 3 years (distinctly since the Boston summit) there have been massive changes to our community. OpenStack went from being the new hotness to becoming a stable, secure open source project that is well respected in the open source community and that was reflected by the amount of people contributing to the projects. I see the low number of candidates for the Train TC election as a direct reflection these changes. While a position on the TC still garners a high level of respect from peers and employers, I have seen a distinct decline in the push for leadership positions from large-scale investors, due to OpenStack's stability and the resulting decline for large changes to be made to OpenStack as a product. Is this a problem? No. Not if we view this as a new start. Defining who are are now as a stable open source product will set us apart from communities that wish to continue to ride the success high.
* Compare and contrast the role of the TC now to 4 years ago. If you weren't around 4 years ago, comment on the changes you've seen over the time you have been around. In either case: What do you think the TC role should be now?
The TC has always been a position of governance that is (debatably) clearly defined as an elected group that provides technical leadership for OpenStack as a whole. I believe it is not the question of what the TC is, but rather, what is the "technical guidance" that the TC provides, and how that has evolved. Four (4) years ago, OpenStack was in a different place in the product life cycle. The hype was high, and we had buy-in from a wide range of investors coming from all different parts of the technology industry. My experience with the TC then was more of a "governing" body helping to shape an incredibly fast growing community and product, whereas now I see it more as a mediation, communication, and community platform that has a focus on technical issues.
* What, to you, is the single most important thing the OpenStack community needs to do to ensure that packagers, deployers, and hobbyist users of OpenStack are willing to consistently upstream their fixes and have a positive experience when they do? What is the TC's role in helping make that "important thing" happen?
As my experience stems directly from documentation, I genuinely believe that this is part of the ticket. Speaking as a communicator and a collaborator, I believe we have along the way lost touch with defining a minimum barrier to entry. When I started in 2014, I was not particularly technically minded. I had worked at Red Hat for 2 years, and my experience had enabled me to understand "Cloud" and XML. I was hired by Rackspace with the proviso that, "We need good writers, we can teach you the technology." As a result, (and with some help) I found it easy and accessible to begin contributing and I've been here since. To be able to build documentation today, as a new comer, I would need to install package dependencies for each repository. I have to read at least 2 different contributor guides to get started. And we still are yet to really open our world to our Windows user friends. Installing a package dep isn't hard or it is time consuming, but understanding and knowing what they. I believe we need to be mindful of the time people have. Whether or not they are working with OpenStack as a part of their employment, or if it is in their spare time.
* What can the TC do to make sure that the community (in its many dimensions) is informed of and engaged in the discussions and decisions of the TC?
This is tough, because there are already so many ways that the TC engages with community and I think that's brilliant. The strong presence on the discuss ML, the ability to join the IRC channels, and the genuine interest each TC member has in open discussion. By most standards, this is an incredibly active and public group and I do not wish to criticise it, only encourage what we have - and if new ways of communicating are requested, that we actively seek adoption to ensure we are including everyone.
* How do you counter people who assert the TC is not relevant? (Presumably you think it is, otherwise you would not have run. If you don't, why did you run?) This relates to my answer to your first question, OpenStack has undergone massive changes not only in community but in focus. It is common that when things change, governing bodies fail to change quickly enough. I can understand how people would come to this conclusion.
However, the TC is changing and that is evident by the large number of TC members who stood down this election and the number of those that have elected to stand for Train. I find the challenge of ensuring that the TC remains relevant to be an important part of what I stand for as a candidate. This means adapting to more changes in the future.
That's probably more than enough. Thanks for your attention.
I'd say that's probably more than enough from me too. Thanks for your questions, hopefully my answers are equally insightful :) Cheers, Alex