Open Stack

Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> I've long come to the conclusion that it is what it is: at the size
> we're at, we can't expect every voter to be fully informed about all the
> issues.
> 
> Better titles and a sort of TL;DR first paragraph in blog posts are very
> helpful. But in order to write those, the author needs to have more
> training as a communicator and more time. It's just a hard problem.

Devil is in the details. We moved from an in-meeting voting system to an
async in-Gerrit voting system, so most of the time the decision is
actually made between meetings, when critical mass of voters is reached.
Meeting summaries may or may not represent accurately the opinion of all
members. Do we need to go through the extra pain of approving meeting
minutes at the next meeting ?

For the Juno/Kilo cycles we just had periodic reports when something
significant was achieved, posted as authored blogposts on the OpenStack
blog by a rotation of authors. I understand how that may not be regular
enough, and I think the next membership will have to revisit how we
communicate the work of the TC out.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)