Open Stack

Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote: 
>Adam Spiers wrote: 
>>[...]
>>Sure.  I particularly agree with your point about processes; I think 
>>the TC (or whoever else volunteers) could definitely help lower the 
>>barrier to starting up a pop-up team by creating a cookie-cutter 
>>kind of approach which would quickly set up any required 
>>infrastructure. For example it could be a simple form or CLI-based 
>>tool posing questions like the following, where the answers could 
>>facilitate the bootstrapping process: 
>>- What is the name of your pop-up team? 
>>- Please enter a brief description of the purpose of your pop-up team. 
>>- If you will use an IRC channel, please state it here. 
>>- Do you need regular IRC meetings? 
>>- Do you need a new git repository?  [If so, ...] 
>>- Do you need a new StoryBoard project?  [If so, ...] 
>>- Do you need a [badge] for use in Subject: headers on openstack-discuss? 
>>etc.
>>
>>The outcome of the form could be anything from pointers to specific 
>>bits of documentation on how to set up the various bits of 
>>infrastructure, all the way through to automation of as much of the 
>>setup as is possible.  The slicker the process, the more agile the 
>>community could become in this respect. 
>
>That's a great idea -- if the pop-up team concept takes on we could 
>definitely automate stuff. In the mean time I feel like the next step 
>is to document what we mean by pop-up team, list them, and give 
>pointers to the type of resources you can have access to (and how to 
>ask for them). 

Agreed - a quickstart document would be a great first step. 

>In terms of "blessing" do you think pop-up teams should be ultimately 
>approved by the TC ? On one hand that adds bureaucracy / steps to the 
>process, but on the other having some kind of official recognition can 
>help them... 
>
>So maybe some after-the-fact recognition would work ? Let pop-up teams 
>freely form and be listed, then have the TC declaring some of them (if 
>not all of them) to be of public interest ? 

Yeah, good questions.  The official recognition is definitely 
beneficial; OTOH I agree that requiring steps up-front might deter 
some teams from materialising.  Automating these as much as possible 
would reduce the risk of that. 

One challenge I see facing an after-the-fact approach is that any 
requests for infrastructure (IRC channel / meetings / git repo / 
Storyboard project etc.) would still need to be approved in advance, 
and presumably a coordinated approach to approval might be more 
effective than one where some of these requests could be approved and 
others denied. 

I'm not sure what the best approach is - sorry ;-)