Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 10/03/2016 12:46 PM, Edward Leafe wrote:
> <snip>
> > We are fortunate in that all of the candidates are exceptionally
> well-qualified, and those elected have put in excellent service while on
> the TC. But one thing I'm afraid of is that we tend to get into a situation
> where groupthink [0] is very likely. There are many excellent candidates
> running in every election, but it is rare for someone who hasn't been a PTL
> of a large project, and thus very visible, has been selected. Is this
> really the best approach?
> >
> > I wrote a blog post about implicit bias [1], and in that post used the
> example of blind auditions for musical orchestras radically changing the
> selection results. Before the introduction of blind auditions, men
> overwhelmingly comprised orchestras, but once the people judging the
> auditions had no clue as to whether the musician was male or female, women
> began to be selected much more in proportion to their numbers in the
> audition pools. So I'd like to propose something for the next election:
> have candidates self-nominate as in the past, but instead of writing a big
> candidacy letter, just state their interest in serving. After the
> nominations close, the election officials will assign each candidate a
> non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those officials will be
> the only ones who know which candidate is associated with which number. The
> nomination period can be much, much shorter, and then followed by a week of
> campaigning (the part that's really missing in the current process).
> Candidates will post their thoughts and positions, and respond to questions
> from people, and this is how the voters will know who best represents what
> they want to see in their TC.
>
> The comparison to orchestra auditions was brought up a couple of cycles
> ago as well. But I think it's a bad comparison.
>
> In the listed example the job being asked of people was performing their
> instrument, and it turns out that lots of things not having to do with
> performing their instrument were biasing the results. It was possible to
> remove the irrelevant parts.
>
> What is the job being asked of a TC member? To put the best interests of
> OpenStack at heart. To be effective in working with a diverse set of
> folks in our community to get things done. To find areas of friction and
> remove them. To help set an overall direction for the project that the
> community accepts and moves forward with.
>
> Writing a good candidacy email isn't really a good representation of
> those abilities. It's the measure of writing a good candidacy email, in
> english.
>
> I hope that when voters vote in the election they are taking the
> reputations of the individuals into account. That they look at the work
> they did across all of OpenStack, the hundreds / thousands of individual
> actions in the community that the person made. How they got to consensus
> on items. What efforts they were able to get folks to rally around and
> move forward. Where they get stuck, and how they dig out of being stuck.
> When they ask for help. When they admit they are out of their element.
> How they help new folks in our community. How they work with long timers.
>
> That aggregate reputation is much more indicative of their
> successfulness as a member of the TC to help OpenStack than the
> candidate email. It's easy to dismiss it as a popularity contest, but I
> don't think it is. This is about evaluating the plausible promise that
> individuals put forward. Not just the ideas they have, but how likely
> they are to be able to bring them to fruition.
>
>         -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
​Well said Sean!​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161005/63c86a52/attachment.html>