Open Stack

On 08/09/16 12:18 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
>
>There's a governance proposal in progress at
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
>visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
>OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.
>
>I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
>project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
>been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
>assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
>what we get up to.
>
>At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
>interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
>preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
>engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
>I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.
>
>The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
>what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
>agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
>that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
>obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
>the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].
>
>I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
>much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
>do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
>the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
>talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
>going well.
>
>[1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
>about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
>authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
>discussion in the present day.

To be honest, I think you're expressing in a negative way something that was
thought in a positive way. The motivation to write the principles down is to
help the community with the help from the community. No one is pushing anyone's
beliefs on anyone. The idea to write these principles down came out of a
retrospective and someone actually signed up for the work.

I do not think the process is trying to push few ppl beliefs on the community.
Someone had to write something down first, right? Someone had to kick this off
somehow, right? I hardly believe we could have collected a list of principles to
reason about out of a mailing list thread. These list is just a starting point
for us to add/remove stuff to it either on follow-up patches or the same one.

As everything else we do in this community, this work is meant to evolve and
progress but again, we have to start somewhere. With what's in that review, I
believe it'll be easier for everyone to reason about the document and the
expectations of it.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160908/d9442ab1/attachment.pgp>