Open Stack

Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> <mailto: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. 

I think we are still bound by the Foundation bylaws and should not
completely merge the "User Committee" and "Technical Committee"
mandates. That said, I think operators "contributions" need to be
recognized as such. So we can probably follow a strategy in three
directions:

* Continue to encourage operators to participate in spec review, code
tryouts etc.

* Encourage developers to recognize significant input from operators as
co-authorship of a feature (like Keystone did with David) -- which would
lead to more operators being ATC

* Develop the "User Committee" -- go beyond organizing the user survey
and really be "the representative body of operators". That may involve
finding a way to identify operators so that they can participate in
elections there (and therefore feel "represented").

My point being... operating OpenStack is different from contributing to
OpenStack development. Both activities are valuable and necessary, but
they are separate activities, represented by separate committees. Some
people do both, by providing essential operator feedback during feature
design (let's call them "contributing operators") -- those people are
awesome and should definitely be recognized on *both* sides.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)