Open Stack

John Dickinson wrote:
> As a smaller category list:
> 
> Compute (eg Nova, Glance)
> Storage (eg Swift, Cinder)
> Networking (eg mutnauQ)
> CI/QA/Docs (eg CI, tempest, docs)
> Operations (eg Horizon, Heat, Ceilometer)
> "cross project" (eg oslo, keystone)
> 
> This certainly isn't a perfect list, but it's an alternative that has some strengths. [...]

The main issue I see with the "category" model (whatever the precise
list is) is that it freezes the relationship between projects and the
relative weight of their representation. Your list for example sets in
stone the following statements: "Storage is as important as Compute",
"Release management or vulnerability management should never be
represented in the TC" and "most future projects will not get their own
seats but will have to share the Operations seat(s)".

The risk is to grow a Technical Committee that is not representative of
the body of current OpenStack contributors. You could argue that we
don't care and that "the list" is how we want to freeze influence of
each category into the TC forever... But having an oversight body that
is no longer seen as representative of the body of contributors is how
most projects end up having a fork to change their governance.

I've seen that happening in other projects I've been involved with...
and personally I think we should make our best to prevent that from
happening. This is why I favor more "representative" models like the
"Best 7 PTLs + 6" or the "All-directly-elected 11" models.

Regards,

-- 
Thierry Carrez