Open Stack

After reading through this, it seems to me like Anita is frustrated with
the motivation among those who submit one patch because of her perception
that they are doing so only to take advantage of a free ticket and by
extension, crowding rooms that affects her ability to hear/engage
effectively. I understand the desire to engage more (for lack of better
term) but reaching beyond someone's contribution and openly suggest they
are not contributing for the right reasons isn't anyone'e concern to be
perfectly frank.

Aside from that, I don't think anyone is taking advantage of anything if
they earn a free ticket to an OpenStack Summit by fulfilling the needful
requirements. If they submit a patch, OpenStack becomes better and the
contributor is entitled to a free ticket to the next Summit. I fail to see
a single downside in that.

Tough love: "gaming" within the context of those who submit one patch,
making remarks about a perceived dishonorable motivation of our peers; that
level of discourse among peers is simply damaging.

//adam


*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen at windriver.com>
wrote:

> On 03/01/2016 03:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Eoghan Glynn's message of 2016-03-01 02:08:00 -0800:
>>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> I think you're right on all of these points. However, what you might
>> not have considered is that _the sheer number of people in the room_
>> can derail the productivity of a group of developers arguing complicated
>> points. It's not that we want to be operating in the shadows; it is that
>> we want to be operating in a safe, creative environment. A room with 5
>> friends, 5 acquaintances, and 100 strangers, is not that. But if there
>> are only, say, 15 strangers, one can take the time to get to know those
>> people, to understand their needs, and make far more progress and be
>> far more inclusive in discussions.
>>
>> What we want is for people to be attending and participating _on
>> purpose_.
>>
>
> I think it's pretty unlikely that people would attend the developer summit
> sessions by accident.  :)
>
> It kind of sounds to me like you want to limit the number of 'tourists'
> that aren't actively involved in the issues being discussed, but are just
> there to observe.  Or am I misinterpreting?
>
> Chris
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160301/4ffa0104/attachment.html>