Open Stack

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
>
> _This is published both as email and a blog post._
>
> # Intro
>
> As promised, here's my first attempt at providing a weekly overview
> of what's happening with the TC. The structure here is subject to
> change as I figure out what makes sense. Suggestions welcome.
>
> This one is short because it is based on today. Next week's will be
> based on the entire week.
>
> # Meeting
>
> ## Settling in the new folk
>
> Welcoming the new people and covering house rules[^1]. The fun part
> of this was by the 5th minute of the meeting we had already
> identified a lack of shared understanding on when to use a
> code-review vote and when to use a rollcall vote. There were a few
> different opinions. Before I get accused of casting shade before
> I've even started I think a) different opinions are _great_, b)
> highlighting those differences (so we can resolve them) even more so.
>
> One opinion that seemed to make sense was that code-review was for
> expressing a comment on the correctness of the content (as in, a -1
> is for many spelling mistakes, or poorly formatted yaml) and
> rollcall is the actual vote being made on the proposed change (yes,
> this is something I agree with; no, I disagree).
>
> [^1]: <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/house-rules.html>
>
> ## User Survey findings
>
> Summary info about the findings of the user survey[^2]. Good question
> from the sidelines about the same big issues coming up in the
> findings of every survey. This then led to questions about what
> impact can the TC have in driving corporate contributors to focus on
> those issues (such as long term support and upgrade difficulty).
> There's a ever present need to make sure that stuff is effectively
> highlighted.
>
> Which then moved to the complicated problem of OpenStack moving both
> too fast and too slow at the same time, depending on who was
> looking. And the difficulty with lack of centralized control over
> the technical direction of OpenStack and (probably most importantly)
> the application of resources. It turned into a bit of black hole so
> the decision was to move the discussion to the mailing list, which I
> hope actually happens.
>
> heidijoy is going to provide some further analysis of "net promoter
> scores" to see what correlations exists. I was curious whether
> openstack devs like openstack more or less than other respondents.
>
> [^2]: <https://www.openstack.org/user-survey/survey-2017>
>
> ## Maybe dropping the meeting
>
> Flavio has introduced a proposal to drop the regularly scheduled TC
> meeting[^3] in favor of more mailing list discussion and more ad-hoc
> meetings. This is something that could greatly change how the
> community interacts with the TC, so if you have a preference you can
> state it on the review.
>
> [^3]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459848/>
>
> # Other Stuff in Progress
>
> ## Draft vision for the TC
>
> It's 2019 and the TC is looking back on itself[^4]. This is an exercise
> to think about where the TC wants to be in the future, and from
> there derive some goals to get there. From some of the feedback it
> is pretty clear that not everyone understands the nature of the
> exercise. This isn't a plan of action, more of a limbering exercise
> to figure out a plan of action.
>
> As you've probably seen there's been a big push to get feedback on
> this. It's worth providing.
>
> [^4]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/>
>
> ## Lingering Proposals
>
> The following proposals are languishing, awaiting either feedback or
> further effort from the author. If these matter to you, you can add
> your voice.
>
> * [Add tag
> assert:never-breaks-compat](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/446561/)
> * [deprecate postgresql in
> OpenStack](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427880/)
> * [Describe what upstream support
> means](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/440601/)
>
> # Colophon
>
> This is intentionally a biased and incomplete view of events. I
> can't hope to report things objectively or completely so it is
> better to be open about it and hope that if there is disagreement
> with my interpretation of events or what I felt was worth mentioning
> people will respond saying so. Responses, engagement, feedback are
> the entire point for doing these. If, over time, my interpretation
> proves to be too out of bounds maybe someone else will start their
> own newsletter. And then after a while every member of the TC will
> be writing their own report.

Please keep doing that, I find it very useful.

Thanks,

> --
> Chris Dent                  ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)       https://anticdent.org/
> freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Emilien Macchi