Open Stack

Anne Gentle wrote:
> [...]
> What are some of the problems with each layer? 
> 
> 1. weekly meeting: time zones, global reach, size of cross-project
> concerns due to multiple projects being affected, another meeting for
> PTLs to attend and pay attention to

A lot of PTLs (or liaisons/lieutenants) skip the meeting, or will only
attend when they have something to ask. Their time is precious and most
of the time the meeting is not relevant for them, so why bother ? You
have a few usual suspects attending all of them, but those people are
cross-project-aware already so those are not the people that would
benefit the most from the meeting.

This partial attendance makes the meeting completely useless as a way to
disseminate information. It makes the meeting mostly useless as a way to
get general approval on cross-project specs.

The meeting still is very useful IMHO to have more direct discussions on
hot topics. So a ML discussion is flagged for direct discussion on IRC
and we have a time slot already booked for that.

> 2. specs: don't seem to get much attention unless they're brought up at
> weekly meeting, finding owners for the work needing to be done in a spec
> is difficult since each project team has its own priorities

Right, it's difficult to get them reviewed, and getting consensus and TC
rubberstamp on them is also a bit of a thankless job. Basically you're
trying to make sure everyone is OK with what you propose and most people
ignore you (and then would be unhappy when they are impacted by the
implementation a month later). I don't think that system works well and
I'd prefer we change it.

> 3. direct communications: decisions from these comms are difficult to
> then communicate more widely, it's difficult to get time with busy PTLs
> 4. Summits: only happens twice a year, decisions made then need to be
> widely communicated
> 
> I'm sure there are more details and problems I'm missing -- feel free to
> fill in as needed. 
> 
> Lastly, what suggestions do you have for solving problems with any of
> these layers? 

I'm starting to think we need to overhaul the whole concept of
cross-project initiatives. The current system where an individual drives
a specific spec and goes through all the hoops to expose it to the rest
of the community is not really working. The current model doesn't
support big overall development cycle goals either, since there is no
team to implement those.

Just brainstorming out loud, maybe we need to have a base team of people
committed to drive such initiatives to completion, a team that
individuals could leverage when they have a cross-project idea, a team
that could define a few cycle goals and actively push them during the cycle.

Maybe cross-project initiatives are too important to be left to the
energy of an individual and rely on random weekly meetings to make
progress. They might need a clear team to own them.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)