Open Stack

Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2016-10-03 15:30:56 +0000:
> hi,
> 
> as there are many candidates this TC election, i figured i'd ask a 
> question to better understand the candidates from the usual sales pitch 
> in self-nominations. hopefully, this will give some insights into the 
> candidates for those who haven't voted yet. obviously, the following is 
> completely optional. :)
> 
> i initially asked this to John Dickinson[1] in his self-nomination. i'd 
> like to open this up to everyone. the (re-worded) question is:
> 
> the TC has historically been a reactive council that lets others ask for 
> change and acts as the final approver. do you believe the TC should be a 
> proactive committee that initiates change and if yes, to what scope? 
> more generally, what are some specific issues you'd like the TC address 
> in the coming year?
> 

Great question Gordon. I sort of wish there was a little more time
between nomination and polls opening, since I'm sure many (myself
included) have just finished the extremely difficult task of ranking
these 21 fine individuals.

My answer is that purely reactive bodies aren't leaders, they're
roadblocks. You need only look at the current US legislative branch to
see an example of this.

But I would disagree that the group has been purely reactive. The
group has been extremely busy with things brought to them, but in their
responses to these issues, they have empowered and encouraged OpenStack
contributors(including themselves) to go out and start initiatives
outside the framework of TC voting to build consensus and communicate
directly with the rest of OpenStack.

The best example of this is The Big Tent. I don't think that was purely
reactive, and it wasn't just the TC that made it happen. Yes, it was
in response to an untenable TC process, but a purely reactive group
would simply band-aid the problem, or let it wend its way through the
beuracracy. Really at the first sign of trouble, the group's members
drafted proposals, debated the issues wit the community, and enacted a
system that, while certainly flawed, produces better results.

So, it may be a nuance, but I'd say the TC is _responsive_, not
_reactive_, and it will work best that way, because OpenStack is big,
and busy, and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.