[openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit
eglynn at redhat.com
Tue Mar 1 10:08:00 UTC 2016
> >>>>> Current thinking would be to give preferential rates to access the main
> >>>>> summit to people who are present to other events (like this new
> >>>>> separated contributors-oriented event, or Ops midcycle(s)). That would
> >>>>> allow for a wider definition of "active community member" and reduce
> >>>>> gaming.
> >>>> I think reducing gaming is important. It is valuable to include those
> >>>> folks who wish to make a contribution to OpenStack, I have confidence
> >>>> the next iteration of entry structure will try to more accurately
> >>>> identify those folks who bring value to OpenStack.
> >>> There have been a couple references to "gaming" on this thread, which
> >>> seem to imply a certain degree of dishonesty, in the sense of bending
> >>> the rules.
> >>> Can anyone who has used the phrase clarify:
> >>> (a) what exactly they mean by gaming in this context
> >>> and:
> >>> (b) why they think this is a clear & present problem demanding a
> >>> solution?
> >>> For the record, landing a small number of patches per cycle and thus
> >>> earning an ATC summit pass as a result is not, IMO at least, gaming.
> >>> Instead, it's called *contributing*.
> >>> (on a small scale, but contributing none-the-less).
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Eoghan
> >> Sure I can tell you what I mean.
> >> In Vancouver I happened to be sitting behind someone who stated "I'm
> >> just here for the buzz." Which is lovely for that person. The problem is
> >> that the buzz that person is there for is partially created by me and I
> >> create it and mean to offer it to people who will return it in kind, not
> >> just soak it up and keep it to themselves.
> >> Now I have no way of knowing who this person is and how they arrived at
> >> the event. But the numbers for people offering one patch to OpenStack
> >> (the bar for a summit pass) is significantly higher than the curve of
> >> people offering two, three or four patches to OpenStack (patches that
> >> are accepted and merged). So some folks are doing the minimum to get a
> >> summit pass rather than being part of the cohort that has their first
> >> patch to OpenStack as a means of offering their second patch to OpenStack.
> >> I consider it an honour and a privilege that I get to work with so many
> >> wonderful people everyday who are dedicated to making open source clouds
> >> available for whoever would wish to have clouds. I'm more than a little
> >> tired of having my energy drained by folks who enjoy feeding off of it
> >> while making no effort to return beneficial energy in kind.
> >> So when I use the phrase gaming, this is the dynamic to which I refer.
> > Thanks for the response.
> > I don't know if drive-by attendance at design summit sessions by under-
> > qualified or uninformed summiteers is encouraged by the availability of
> > ATC passes. But as long as those individuals aren't actively derailing
> > the conversation in sessions, I wouldn't consider their buzz soakage as
> > a major issue TBH.
> > In any case, I would say that just meeting the bar for an ATC summit pass
> > (by landing the required number of patches) is not bending the rules or
> > misrepresenting in any way.
> > Even if specifically motivated by the ATC pass (as opposed to scratching
> > a very specific itch) it's still simply an honest and rational response
> > to an incentive offered by the foundation.
> > One could argue whether the incentive is mis-designed, but that doesn't
> > IMO make a gamer of any contributor who simply meets the required threshold
> > of activity.
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the larger issue is one of
> Folks who want to help (even if they don't know how yet) carry an energy
> of intention with them which is nourishing to be around. Folks who are
> trying to get in the door and not be expected to help and hope noone
> notices carry an entirely different kind of energy with them. It is a
> non-nourishing energy.
Personally I don't buy into that notion of the wrong sort of people
sneaking in the door of summit, keeping their heads down and hoping
We have an open community that conducts its business in public. Not
wanting folks with the wrong sort of energy to be around when that
business is being done, runs counter to our open ethos IMO.
There are a whole slew of folks who work fulltime on OpenStack but
contribute mainly in the background: operating clouds, managing
engineering teams, supporting customers, designing product roadmaps,
training new users etc. TBH we should be flattered that the design
summit sessions are interesting and engaging enough to also attract
some of that sort of audience, as well as the core contributors of
code. If those interested folks happen to also have the gumption to
earn an ATC pass by meeting the threshold for contributor activity,
then good for them! As long as no-one is actively derailing the
discussion, I don't see much of an issue with the current mix of
> Ratios also come into play, if you have a group that is 98% nourishing
> and 2% not nourishing then I can tolerate that. But when the ratios
> start to tip (and I have no hard numbers for this as some folks carry
> energy equal to three other people, plus energy can fluctuate) then we
> move to the non-nourishing position.
> I'm saying I'm in favour of spending time with folks with energy that is
> mutually beneficial and nourishing for me. I don't have any way of
> translating that to numbers or passes or gerrit actions, but that is the
> best I can offer.
More information about the OpenStack-dev