Open Stack

Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2015-04-27 23:20:39 +0100:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> > I believe all of the posts were on the main OpenStack foundation blog
> > under the "technical committee" tag [1], and they also went to
> > planet.openstack.org for folks who subscribe to the entire community
> > feed.
> 
> Ah. Some things about that:
> 
> * in the right sidebar, under categories, there is no "category" for
>    the "tag" "technical-committee"
> * assuming the blog is up to date there were three postings in that
>    tag last year, and none so far this year
> * there are some posts from this year, but they didn't get the tag

Obviously we need to work on our consistency, there. :-)

I scanned the archives and found a few posts starting in July and
covering the big themes of what we were discussing for the last half of
Juno.

http://www.openstack.org/blog/2014/07/openstack-technical-committee-update-july-1/
http://www.openstack.org/blog/2014/09/latest-technical-committee-updates/
http://www.openstack.org/blog/2014/10/openstack-technical-committee-update-2/

I think this post from Anne was inspired by a discussion we had in a
TC meeting, but I'm not sure if it was meant as an update:

http://www.openstack.org/blog/2014/12/studying-midcycle-sprints-and-meetings/

And then Thierry's post from this year summarizing the big tent work:

http://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/tc-update-project-reform-progress/

I didn't find any summaries after that, but I was scanning quickly and
might have missed one.

> 
> >> The only way I've been able to get any sense of what the TC might be
> >> up to is by watching the governance project on gerrit and that tends
> >> to be too soon and insufficiently summarized and thus a fair bit of
> >> work to separate the details from the destinations.
> >
> > I think we chose blog posts for their relative permanence, and
> > retweetability. Maybe we should post to the mailing list instead,
> > if the contributor community follows the list more regularly than
> > blogs?
> 
> I think on a blog is a great idea, but my point with above and the
> earlier message is either that the blogging is not happening or I'm not
> finding it. The impression I got from your earlier message was that
> summaries from the meetings were being produced. The TC met more than
> three times in 2014, yes? So either something is amiss with linking
> up the blog posts or the summaries aren't happening.

We didn't summarize each meeting. There were only meant to be posts
every few weeks, since often a topic will take a couple of weeks
to iron out.  We started in July, mid-way through Juno, which also
contributed to a lower count.

> 
> I think it would be great if there were weekly or montly summaries. They
> can go to whatever medium is deemed appropriate but it is critical that
> new folk are able to find them.
> 
> _Summaries_ are critical as it is important that the information is
> digested and contextualized so its relevance can be more clear. I
> know that I can read the IRC logs but I suspect most people don't
> want to make the time for that.
> 

As you say, the meeting logs are published, but it's not reasonable
to expect everyone to read those.  A fair amount of the discussion
is happening in gerrit review comments now, too, and those aren't
part of the meeting logs.

OTOH, I'm not sure a strict weekly summary is going to be that
useful. We do not always resolve all issues in a week, so we won't
always have a conclusion to report. Ongoing discussions are tracked
either here on the mailing list or in gerrit, and I'm not sure we
want to try to duplicate that information to summarize it. So we
need to find a balance, and I agree that we need to continue posting
summaries.

Doug