Open Stack

On 05/04/2015 10:46 AM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> 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].

No that wasn't what I meant. You seem to be making a point so I won't
detract from your point, except to clarify that was not my meaning.

Thanks,
Anita.

> 
> 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