Open Stack

On 13 November 2015 at 14:10, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> So.. quick summary of this thread so far.
>
> (-)
> * Not enough work to warrant a designated "team", now that the work is
> decentralized and the cats are mostly herding themselves
> * The change is unlikely to bring a meaningful improvement to the
> situation, or sudden new resources
>
> (+)
> * An empowered team could tackle new coordination tasks, like engaging
> more directly in converging stable branch rules across teams, or
> producing tools
> * Release management doesn't overlap anymore with stable branch, so
> having them under that PTL is limiting and inefficient
> * Reinforcing the branding (by giving it its own team) may encourage
> more organizations to affect new resources to it
>
> In summary, I think this is worth a try. If the team fails, at least it
> will be on its own rather than as the 5th squeaky wheel of release
> management (where lack of leadership and focus could be rightly blamed
> for failure).
>
> For this to succeed, we need someone to own the effort and push it
> forward, and a number of people caring enough about it to attend regular
> meetings about it and to lurk on #openstack-stable. I'm fine helping the
> team in the spin-off effort but I don't want to lead it (I proved I was
> unable to make it my top priority in the past, so I think the team
> deserves a more focused lead).
>
> Erno has volunteered to lead. Ihar, Alan (Pevec) and myself don't have
> enough time to lead but are happy to help. Anyone else interested to
> join that initial group ? Flavio ? Matt ?
>
> Once we have a list of key members we should set up a meeting to discuss
> the details.

I think this summary is pretty reflective of the thread so far.  I
also agree that I see very little benefit from transitioning the
stable-maint-core team into a recognised project team, I can't imagine
there being any measurable benefit from this.. feels more like a paper
exercise..  however, I don't feel strongly enough to try and stop
this.

Due to limited time, I'd not like to be a driver... but would like to
be part of the seed group of cores.  If this is to happen, it  seems
reasonable to map stable-maint-core -> stable-maint project.

We've traditionally been pretty bad with discussion and engaging with
fellow stable-maint members, so a standing (short) meeting might help
improve this.

--
Kind Regards,
Dave Walker