Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.

I think that the work on documenting our key principles was proactive,
and it really helped to set expectations for new people in our community.

> Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> reactive ended up being the wrong choice.

The definition of "base services" was also a proactive step, but it
failed (so far) to trigger the desired effect (solve the catch-22 around
etcd3).

> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).

Even if the proactive decisions were not all successful, I still think
the TC needs to be proactive rather than reactive. We are in a unique
position to be able to take a step back and look at the whole picture,
rather than look for the dead fish only once you start noticing the
smell. We have a few issues that bubbled up that are still unsolved
(like the decision on driver teams) which if we had addressed them
proactively would likely have been easier.

I don't think we need dramatic changes to be able to do active changes
effectively. The TC members generally have enough influence to drive
that. Some of them are a little shy in using that influence in this way,
though, so it ends up falling on the same smaller set of people to burn
their influence credit to drive governance change, and that only lasts
for so long. So I'd like to see the TC members (and more generally the
people interested in governance problems) more active in discovering
issues, proactively addressing them and owning the changes.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)