Open Stack

confirmed

On 10/10/2014 01:22 AM, John Griffith wrote:
> I'd like to announce my candidacy for the OpenStack Technical Committee
> Fall 2014 elections.
> 
> I've been contributing to OpenStack for almost three years now (this months
> my anniversary) and up until this election cycle have served as PTL for the
> Cinder Project.  Over the years I've had the opportunity to be on the TC
> both as a result of PTL (back when PTL's were reserved seats) as well as by
> election.  Last spring however I chose not to run for a seat, for a number
> of reasons.  For one I didn't feel as though I had the bandwidth to really
> dedicate as much as I should but more importantly I didn't necessarily feel
> that what I was doing was really that worthwhile.
> 
> Since then there's been a number of ideas proposed about changing some of
> our models including the role of the TC.  I really believe that this is
> something that we need to do and am excited about the potential
> opportunity.  I think there's a lot that needs to be done here, I also
> think it's going to be a learning experience and something that's needed is
> an open mind.
> 
> After the Juno cycle I decided not to seek another term as PTL partly
> because I didn't feel that I would be able to effectively fulfill the role
> of PTL and serve as a member of the TC.  So I decided that for me, I'd like
> the opportunity (if elected) to focus on contributing more broadly to
> OpenStack with a focus on service on the Technical Committee.
> 
> Answers to the candidacy questions are below.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> Topic: OpenStack Mission
> How do you feel the technical community is doing in meeting the OpenStack
> Mission?
> 
> Just as a refresh: "To produce the ubiquitous OpenSource Cloud Computing
> platform that will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless
> of size, by being simple to implement and massively scalable."
> 
> So I always find this one a bit challenging to digest to be honest.  I
> think the "ubiquitous" part is coming along and is becoming a reality and I
> also think that there's a decent balance between public and private clouds
> and that the relative term "size" could be interpreted as something that's
> being addressed fairly well thus far.
> 
> Those are the good.... now for the not so good; "simple to implement"; I
> don't think deployment is  quite as bad as it's made out to be at times,
> but it certainly leaves a bit to be desired.  One thing that's always
> bothered me here is that it's always been "left to the distros" to provide
> their custom deployment tools and we've never been able to even provide a
> common deployment foundation as a community.  I really think that's too
> bad, you can build the greatest software project there is, but if people
> can't comprehend all the pieces let alone install and configure it fairly
> easily it's really not living up to it's potential.
> 
> From the perspective of the TC, I'm really not sure what role the TC is
> playing in the overall mission to be honest.  In my opinion the TC has
> really become mostly a committee relegated to voting on project incubation
> and proposals for things like project mission statements.  It's really not
> very technical in my opinion and it's also not overly effective either.
> 
> In my opinion the TC needs to undergo some changes, it would be great as
> others mentioned to move away from just voting on incubation motions and
> mission statements or gap analysis efforts and actually focus more on
> technical decisions that impact OpenStack as a whole.  For example I think
> it would be great for the TC to take a more active role in really having a
> deep understanding of how all of the various OpenStack projects are
> actually coming together, what they're doing that works, what they're doing
> that's not and perhaps provide some guidance and input as well as technical
> leadership and direction.  I'm certainly not saying they should be an all
> powerful oversight group, but I do think the focus as it stands currently
> is wrong.
> 
> 
> Topic: Technical Committee Mission
> How do you feel the technical committee is doing in meeting the technical
> committee mission?
> (Reading from the Mission Statement here: [2])
> 
> I'm not sure that given the current state of OpenStack and the number of
> projects and proposed projects the TC can be faulted for anything here.
> The fact is that it's become a full time job to just try and keep up to
> date on all the constantly changing projects in the ecosystem, not to
> mention all the newly proposed projects.  I do think that it would be
> helpful if the TC was able to be adjusted and tweaked a bit such that it
> had a more active engagement in technical direction of the project; say for
> example driving things like making installation more of a community effort,
> providing HA options that really work and most of all pushing every project
> in OpenStack to be responsible for making the upgrade process better.  I
> also think that the TC needs to make some really hard decisions about
> things; like projects that have been started, approved for incubation but
> maybe aren't really turning out as was hoped.  In my opinion there are a
> number of projects like Neutron, TripleO and some others that I think we
> really need to figure out a way to get them to a point where they can
> graduate and be solid for use or revisit what their current status is.  It
> just doesn't seem right to let the process go on for years in some cases.
> 
> I think that there are a number of folks on the TC currently that are in
> fact driving some of these initiatives pretty well, but I don't see that
> it's being driven from their roles on the TC but instead it's mostly just a
> result of a lot of hard work and dedication on their part and the fact that
> they've stepped up and proven themselves as leaders.
> 
> Topic: Contributor Motivation
> How would you characterize the various facets of contributor motivation?
> 
> I believe this question is asking "what I think is the motivation for the
> people actually committing to OpenStack" so that's how I'll address it.
> It's interesting, there's most certainly a number of companies with what
> might be considered "armies" of folks working and contributing.  The
> important part however when asking about motivation is what's motivating
> the contributors themselves;  of course I think many of us our motivated by
> our employers and a pay check and there's no doubt that some of that
> influences our day to day decision making.  That being said, at the end of
> the day most people I talk to just love working as a part of the community
> and having the opportunity to be an Open Source Professional.  Regardless
> of how they end up there, it seems to me that most of the folks I work with
> regularly are motivated by OpenStack itself and the opportunity to be a
> part of something "big".
> 
> 
> Topic: Rate of Growth
> There is no argument the OpenStack technical community has a substantial
> rate of growth. What are some of the consequences of this rate?
> 
> There is indeed no arguing that the growth has been phenomenal.  There's
> also no arguing that there are consequences.  My statements earlier about
> the current role and function of the TC (more precisely my criticism) is a
> direct result of that phenomenal growth.  The model that we started with
> just flat out does not scale to the level we've grown to.
> 
> I think that things start to break down, starting with effectiveness of our
> current governance model; but worse I think we discourage the "casual"
> contributor.  Personally when I first contributed to OpenStack three years
> ago it was very discouraging for me when  a patch update I submitted sat
> idle for two whole days without somebody reviewing it.  Currently two days
> would be considered by most a rapid turn around.  The point is there are
> people with good ideas and good contributions that get lost in the shuffle,
> and they don't come back.
> 
> Topic: New Contributor Experience
> How would you characterize the experience new contributors have currently?
> 
> I sort of touched on this in the previous question, but there's certainly
> more I think that can be added here.  I think the experience for most new
> contributors just plane sucks!  What's worse is I've taken part in
> discussions where this topic was discussed and some honestly state "I don't
> care, that's not my problem".  Over the years I've heard OpenStack called
> things like "The Ego Stack" and have had quite a few people point out to me
> that it's not a very welcoming environment.  I think that many of us that
> have been around for a bit sometimes take for granted that not only is
> OpenStack a rather large and fairly complex collection of moving parts, but
> we also have some very specific ways of doing things.  We also tend to be
> pretty hard on reviews sometimes (not saying that's good or bad, just
> saying sometimes when I read through review comments I kinda feel bad for
> people on the other end).
> 
> I think we'd all do well to take on a bit more of a mentorship role.  One
> other thing that often comes up on this topic is the CLA, there's a lot of
> buzz about it on the ML and in some peoples blog posts.  I should probably
> share my opinion here as it seems relevant; I've never understood why it
> was such a big deal, and I've never had anybody tell me that they wouldn't
> contribute to Cinder because of it or that it caused them any undue
> burden.  I'm certainly not saying those sorts of claims are not real or
> justified, I'm just saying that if you're looking for a TC candidate to
> fight the CLA fight, I'm most certainly going to disappoint you on that.  I
> really don't understand why it's such a hot item for some and I'd rather
> just come out and be up front about it than ignore it.
> 
> 
> Topic: Communication
> How would you describe our current state of communication in the OpenStack
> community?
> 
> So the good thing here is I think we communicate well considering the
> challenge we have.  I think that most people are currently very open via
> public discussions on IRC and raising issues and concerns on the mailing
> list.  The only problem is that it's become increasingly difficult to
> actually keep up.  So in terms of the community being open and
> communicating, I think we're doing great.  In terms of the volume of
> communication and the effort required to keep up to date, it's a bit
> overwhelming.  You certainly need to focus on certain areas/items that are
> most interesting or applicable to yourself in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Topic: Relationship with the Foundation Board
> The technical committee interacts with the foundation board on several
> different fronts. How would you describe these interactions?
> 
> Hmmm....  well, I'm really not sure.  While I was on the TC in the past
> there really hadn't been much interaction or communication between the
> Board and the TC, and one of the few experiences that I did have frankly
> was less than what I would call enjoyable or productive.  So I don't really
> have much insight here, and the experiences that I have had (which are very
> very limited) were not good experiences.
> 
> That being said, I believe there have been efforts over the last few months
> to improve this and increase the interaction and communication in a
> productive way, which I think is great and much needed.
> 
> [2]:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>