Open Stack

Colette Alexander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com
> <mailto:doug at doughellmann.com>> wrote:
>
>>     As I understood it when this course was originally proposed, the
>>     idea was to have a few folks already in leadership positions go
>>     take the training and evaluate it. Then, assuming the evaluation
>>     was good, we would offer it to (or at least suggest it to) other
>>     members of the community like PTLs or folks interested in running
>>     for leadership positions of some sort (not that folks who aren't
>>     elected can't be leaders, but one step at a time).
>>
>>     How did that evolve into most of the TC (and Board?) going? Did
>>     someone do that evaluation already?
>
>
> it only evolved into much of the TC going because more people than I
> initially expected to based on previous conversations expressed interest
> in being able to attend. The general cost of a single custom-session for
> a group makes it possible to accommodate that larger group (so, having
> 10-20 people in an exclusive, not-public session, is within the bounds
> of expected attendance).  No one from the board so far has said they'd
> be able to attend, fwiw, and I've checked with a few of them privately
> to gauge interest, which seems minimal there. I don't think the
> expectation that this is an 'official' or 'required' training is
> suddenly there, though - this will still be intended to be an evaluative
> session, just one that was more conducive, timing-wise, to the schedules
> of people who expressed interest in attending it.

I fear that a part of it is that some TC members realized that a 
critical mass of TC members would attend, which turns the event into a 
sort of TC midcycle (if only in social events like dinners), so they 
decided they should probably join to not be excluded. I sure would like 
to be there is half the TC members will be around: sounds like the 
avenue for pretty interesting discussions.

My fear with making that TC-only are the following: it increases the 
artificial rift between the TC members and the rest of the community, 
and it ignores that our leadership is not limited to TC members, but 
includes PTLs, cross-project liaisons and other thankless jobs. As a 
result, it reduces the value of the experiment by drawing only from the 
TC ranks (rather than inviting a sample representation of leadership to 
assess the training), and unnecessarily fuels the us vs. them attitude.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)