Open Stack

The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see what is being proposed and give input.

Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be the operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the equivalent operator/user definition is less clear.

I’m trying to capture the various comments from this discussion as time permits in the ether pad for the user committee design session at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-user-committee but feel free to add further items you’d like to discuss. The user committee or operators mailing list is, IMHO, a better place for these discussions since they are generally paid to run their clouds.

Tim (trying to keep up while running a 140K core cloud and doing lots outreach )


From: Adam Lawson <alawson at aqorn.com<mailto:alawson at aqorn.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 6:06 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Who is allowed to vote for TC candidates

So this is an interesting idea. Would we require operators co-author/review all patches that land? if not (and that actually strikes me as making uploading patches more difficult unnecessarily), My question is how Operators can easily get involved with that process.

If Operators want to get recognized for contributing and participate with TC elections, an easy way to start an engagement with some means of tracking would be immensely helpful I think.

Does the current system allow this kind of co-authoring/operator review sort of thing?


Adam Lawson

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072
[http://www.aqorn.com/images/logo.png]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at outlook.com<mailto:harlowja at outlook.com>> wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
One concrete suggestion based on my experience working with Kris
Lindgren on Heartbeat patch:
http://markmail.org/message/gifrt5f3mslco24j

I could have added a "Co-Tested-By" (or "Co-Operator" - get it? :) in
my commit message which would have signaled a concrete
contribution/feedback with specific folks in the operator community.
This could be done not just for code, could be for reviews or
documentation etc as well. WDYT?

+1 Kris is a great example, and I can think of other operators that should be some sort of ATC (but may not contribute code to get this). IMHO any operator running openstack (let's say at least at 50+ compute nodes) and operating it should get full access to the summit, because their words of advice/experience are just as useful as technical contributors...



thanks,
dims

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Adam Lawson<alawson at aqorn.com<mailto:alawson at aqorn.com>>  wrote:
I think it's easy to quantify a code contributor since we have systems that
monitor activity - who contributed, what they contributed and when. But we
don't have a system that monitors operator activity and honestly, that's the
question mark for which I really don't have any answers. That might be our
first hurdle - how define the difference between a causal user making
remarks on the mailing lists and someone who works with the technology and
engages. We'd have to quantify them differently somehow.

Maybe attending an operators meeting would qualify someone to vote?

On Apr 30, 2015 5:35 PM, "Stefano Maffulli"<stefano at openstack.org<mailto:stefano at openstack.org>>  wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:26 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
I've seen the number of threads to discuss Ops topics increase in
openstack-dev and the influence of Ops - even just points of views
inherited from the feedback we've got - on reviews has gotten better
as well.
Fantastic, that has always been the intention.

If it's a matter of having more Ops voting for the TC, we do have a
process in place that we could likely improve. Other than that, I
believe Thierry and Doug have explained perfectly the issues related
to having these 2 groups merged from a *governance* perspective.
I noticed that this round of elections we had TC *candidates* that at
least I consider more operators than strictly 'dev'. That, to me, is a
huge sign of the progress we've made to integrate the two categories.

To me the real big question is: how are candidates from the operators
side going to get a better chance of being elected next time?

And what's the role of the User Committee in all this?

/stef


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev





__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150501/9c10a5b8/attachment.html>