Open Stack

On 05/04/15 17:07, Anita Kuno wrote:
> I'd like to go back to the beginning to clarify something.
>
> On 04/29/2015 02:34 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
>> So I started replying to Doug's email in a different thread but didn't want
>> to hi-jack that so I figured I'd present my question as a more general
>> question about how voting is handled for the TC.
>>
>> Anyway, I find it curious that the TC is elected by those within the
>> developer community but TC candidates talk about representing the operator
>> community
> In my statements I talked about acknowledging the operator community not
> representing them. When I speak, I represent myself and my best
> understanding of a certain situation, if others find value in the
> position I hold, they will let me know.
>
> In my view of what comprises OpenStack, the TC is one point of a
> triangle and the operators are an entirely different point. Trying to
> get two points of a triangle to be the same thing compromises the
> integrity of the structure. Each needs to play its part, not try to be
> something it is not.
A three point triangle. I like the idea! Anita I assume that you are 
talking about the TC[3], the board [1] and the user committee [2].

I honestly do not see this at the moment as an equally weighted triangle.
Should they be? Perhaps not, maybe yes.

It could be that my view of things is skew, but here it is.

The way to get something into OpenStack is through code.
Who submits the code? Developers.
Who approves code? Reviewers and core
On top of that you have the PTL
Above the PTL - you have the TC. They decide what is added into 
OpenStack and (are supposed) drive overall direction.

These are the people that have actionable influence into what goes into 
the products.

AFAIK neither the Foundation - nor the User committee have any 
actionable influence into what goes into the products, what items are 
prioritized and what is dropped.

If each of the three point of the triangle had proper (actionable) 
influence and (actionable) say in what goes on and happens within the 
OpenStack then that would be ideal. Does the representation have to be 
equal? I don't think so. But it should be there somehow.

One of the points of the User Committee mission is:
"Consolidate user requirements and present these to the management board 
and technical committee"

There is no mention that I could find on any of the other missions[3][1] 
that says that the TC or the board have to do anything with user 
requirements presented to them.

I do not know if this has ever been addressed before, but it should be 
defined. A process with where the TC and collects requirements from the 
User Committee or Board and with a defined process this trickles down 
into the teams and projects.

My 0.02 Shekels.

> There have been many helpful comments on how those operators who wish to
> contribute to reviews, patches and specs as well as receive ATC status
> may do so, for those operators who wish to be acknowledged as
> contributors as well as being operators.
>
> Operators have a very useful, very valuable, very necessary perspective
> that is not a developer's perspective that needs to be heard and
> communicated.
>
> Thierry has made the suggestion that a strong User Committee
> representing the voice of the operator would be a good direction here. I
> support this suggestion. Tim Bell is working on an etherpad here:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-user-committee
>
> Thank you Adam,
> Anita.
>
>
>> who are not allowed to vote. Operators meaning Admins,
>> Architects, etc. It sounds like this is something most TC candidates want
>> which most would agree is a good thing. At least I think so. ; )
>>
>> Is it be feasible to start allowing the operator community to also cast
>> votes for TC candidates? Is the TC *only* addressing technical concerns
>> that are relevant to the development community? Since the TC candidates are
>> embracing the idea of representing more than just the developer community,
>> it would /seem/ the voters electing the TC members should include the
>> communities being represented. If the TC only addresses developer concerns,
>> it would seem they become at risk of losing touch with the
>> operator/architecture/user concerns because the operator community voice is
>> never heard in the voting booth.
>>
>> Perhaps this bumps into how it used to be versus how it should be. I don't
>> know. Just struck me as incongruent with the platform of almost every
>> candidate - broadening representation while the current rules prohibit that
>> level of co-participation.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>>
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/Mission
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
[3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
-- 
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing