Open Stack

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> Chris Dent wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote:
>>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Carol Barrett <carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
>>> So, it sounds like you've just described the job of the TC. And they 
>>> have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of 
>>> derivative decisions that seem ... inconsistent over time.
>> 
>> Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. I agree that OpenStack 
>> needs some architectural vision, direction, leadership, call it what 
>> you will. Every time I've voted for the _Technical_ Committee that 
>> leadership is what I've wanted my vote to be creating.
> 
> The TC is a representative body which is elected to make top-down decisions on OpenStack. However, as much as our community loves the idea of "technical leadership" and "vision", they hate the top-down decisions that come with it (especially when that top-down decision doesn't go their way). They prefer bottom-up consensus.
> 
> So I'd argue that you need both. You need the TC whenever a hard call has to be made, but in order to minimize the number of those hard calls (and favor consensus building) you also need working groups to build a bottom-up reasonable way forward.

>>This reads very strange to me, as I'd expect a group of technical leaders to both make hard calls *and* to be able to build consensus on overall direction and vision. They're >>two sides of the same coin. What is it about our process that means the TC can't build consensus on direction, but can only impose its will? I expect you didn't mean it to >>sound that way, though. Is the workload too high on the bookkeeping to prevent the vision building? Are we too afraid of the implications of defining 'what is openstack?', >>and what it might mean to existing projects and the community? I'd think that in the long-run, it'd prevent seemingly unrelated topics from seeming to go sideways so >>often, and prevent a lot of these "hard calls".

+1. Making decisions is an element of being a leader. As a community, I believe we need this role filled.

>>But, I'm also on the fringe that is very ready to call the "big tent" a failed experiment in attempting to avoid hard calls, too.

> 
>> It may be that an architecture working group can provide some 
>> guidance that people will find useful. Against the odds I think those 
>> of us in the API-WG have actually managed to have a positive 
>> influence. We've not shaken things down to the foundations from which 
>> a great a glorious future may be born -- a lot of compromises have 
>> been made and not everybody wants to play along -- but things are 
>> going in the right direction, for some people, in some projects.
>> Maybe a similar thing can happen with architecture.
> 
> That is my hope. I see the API WG and the Architecture WG as groups of experts in specific domains preparing recommendations and long-term plans. They don't have authority to force them onto projects. Ideally projects adopt them because they see them as the right way to do things.
> 
> And for the very few things that the TC deems necessary for OpenStack and where bottom-up didn't get it in a specific project (if all else fails), the TC can make a top-down request to a project to do things a certain way. The project can them either comply or reject the TC oversight and become an unofficial project.

>>Don't get me wrong, I welcome this initiative. I find it mildly disconcerting that the folks that I thought we were electing to fill this role will instead be filled by others, but the vacuum does need to be filled, and I thank Clint for stepping up.
+1. I appreciate Clint making this proposal. I think a cohesive, consistent architecture across OpenStack is crucial to our long term efficiency and sustaining a high rate of innovation.

Thanks,
Carol


> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev