Open Stack

On 23/04/18 14:27, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> ongoing election.]
> 
> We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> issues that affect the entire community.
> 
> 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 the best example of the TC being proactive and it being the
right choice is the Visioning document and exercise.

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

The InterOp testing and Tempest situation is the most vivid in my mind
(after being in the centre of it for months). Members of the TC were
proactive, but the TC as a whole was passive on it.

The TC reacted 3 or 4 days after the board had approved the program -
when we should have had an answer months before.

> 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).

I do think the TC should be more active in driving OpenStack forward.
I think the TC has a role in listening to the developers who are driving
the projects forward, and connecting them with other project developers
where appropriate, while also co-ordinating with the User Committee, to
see where commonalities are, and then using its voice to drive change
in the foundation, and member companies (via the Board, foundation staff
and other potentially more informal avenues).

But for that, the TC will need to find a collective voice, that is
pro-active, as trying to drive a project in the manner above cannot
be reactive - by the time we develop a position that we are reacting
with it, it will be too late.

I think introducing more formal in-person blocks of time as a group is
important, with a time blocked agenda, and enforced chairing could help
us do that.

I know it is not a popular opinion, but a 1/2 day every 6 months where
all TC members can be available and attend the meeting can really help
a group find a mutual voice.

> If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> taking an active role in implementing.
> 
> Doug
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180423/c59deac2/attachment.sig>