[openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

Sylvain Bauza sbauza at redhat.com
Tue Mar 1 10:26:06 UTC 2016

Le 01/03/2016 11:08, Eoghan Glynn a écrit :
>>>>>>> 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
>> motivation.
>> 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
> no-one notices.
> 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
> attendees.

Excellent point. We are OpenStack, but "we" is not only the main 
upstream developers.
That's why I want to make sure that "we" is a team with all of us in a 
same venue.
That's also why we have keynotes, but "we" is not only us but their.


> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>> 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.
>> Thanks,
>> Anita.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list