Open Stack

Excerpts from Maish Saidel-Keesing's message of 2015-05-04 17:46:21 +0300:
> 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.

You're describing these relationships in a much more hierarchical manner
than I think reflects their reality.

Decisions about the future of OpenStack are made by the people who
show up and contribute.  We try to identify common goals and
priorities, and where there's little overlap we support each other
in ways that we perceive improve the project. That process uses
input from many sources, including product managers from contributing
companies and operator/user feedback. As Thierry pointed out, there's
no community group dictating what anyone works on or what the
priorities are.

Again, I'm curious about the specific issues driving this discussion.
Are there bugs or blueprints that you feel need more attention?

Doug