Open Stack

Chris Dent wrote:
> What can and should the TC at large, and you specifically, do to ensure
> quality improves for the developers, end-users and operators of
> OpenStack as a full system, both as a project being developed and a
> product being used?

At a strategic level, as I mention in my candidacy email, I think we
have naturally done a reasonably good job at serving a "middle-tier" use
case. However, the natural forces that drive OpenStack development
(basically the interests of the companies funding most of the
development) won't naturally drive us to well supporting the other
tiers: small deployments / POC / university lab experimentation on one
side, and large public cloud needs on the other. And those are essential
to the long-term success of OpenStack.

While the Technical Committee has a limited influence (as it doesn't,
per se, drive development resources), I still think it can highlight the
importance of those use cases and encourage project teams to integrate
them in their priorities and roadmaps.

At a tactical level, I think Technical Committee members are well-placed
to take a step back on OpenStack as a whole and notice long-standing
issues, investigate them and propose solutions. The TC has been
traditionally staffed with very busy people that had little time to
dedicate to deeper issues: just keeping up with governance model updates
was enough to keep everyone busy. As chair, Technical Committee matters
represent nearly half of my work time. With 3 members stepping down,
this election is the occasion to select new blood that may be able to
commit the same part of their worktime.

If elected, I intend to encourage Technical Committee members to follow
those directions, to form smaller workgroups and work on issues beyond
the weekly meeting. That should allow us to address those long-standing,
cross-project issues that durably impact quality for developers,
end-users and operators of OpenStack.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)