Open Stack

On 29 April 2015 at 20:48, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 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.

Most organisations of this size have a secretary whose job is to
communicate with various folk, both in and out of the org.

Perhaps the TC should elect / ask for a volunteer on of its members to
be the TC secretary and be responsible for providing some push (vs
pull) insight into the current state of things.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud