Open Stack

I purposely didn't email the general mailing list since I didn't want to
cross-post, hard to have these discussions across verticals and choosing
one list = hearing one community - those subscribed to the developer
mailing list.

So I'm not assuming anything, it seems some are suggesting that Operators
get into code review to quantify their role as an engaged Operator. Is that
a correct statement? Just want to make sure I'm hearing correctly. I try to
avoid absolutes but personally speaking for the record, I don't believe the
answer lies with asking Operators to become code reviewers on top of
everthing else they're doing in order for them to have a voice in the TC
elections. If code reviews are being suggested (again, assuming the
assumption is correct for the sake of making my point), technical
contribution extends far beyond uploading and reviewing code. This
alternate means to gain ATC status seems like a potential candidate for
those who want to review code but not for those who are day-to-day
operators engaging with the community.

Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are
meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input?

Given this conversation involves the Operator community as well, I went
ahead and CC'd them to hopefully capture their specific thoughts/ideas on
the subject.

Mahalo,
Adam


*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


On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 think spec review participation is a great example of where it would
>> make sense to grant extra ATC status.  If someone provides valuable spec
>> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to
>> approve their ATC status if proposed.
>
>
> This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is
> looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec
> process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the contributions.
>
> This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation.
>
> --Morgan
>
>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at 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://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/20150501/3d1ae702/attachment.html>