Open Stack

Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote:
> [...]
> A) In a world where "general" OpenStack issues/features are solved through community goals, do you think the TC should focus on "less interesting" technical issues across projects, like tech debt reduction? Or at the opposite, do you think the TC should tackle the hardest OpenStack wide problems?

I'd say both. Community goals can be used to achieve a common level for
"OpenStack" -- one way is to use them for user-visible change, but the
other is to use them to set basic standards. Ideally it should always
been ultimately beneficial to the user.

> B) Do you think the TC must check and actively follow all the official projects' health and activities? Why?

I found the "health check" exercise a bit time consuming, but
interesting, especially for projects I'm not deeply familiar with. Maybe
having two people assigned to every project every 6 months is a bit too
much though.

> C) Do you think the TC's role is to "empower" project and PTLs? If yes, how do you think the TC can help those? If no, do you think it would be the other way around, with PTLs empowering the TC to achieve more? How and why?

I believe in servant leadership -- I think the part of the TC's role is
to empower everyone else to do their part. By setting standards,
resolving conflicts, adapting systems and processes to changing conditions.

> D) Do you think the community goals should be converted to a "backlog"of time constrained OpenStack "projects", instead of being constrained per cycle? (with the ability to align some goals with releasing when necessary)

I personally prefer to keep reasonable goals tied to release cycles,
rather than have a constant backlog of TC-dictated objectives.

> E) Do you think we should abandon projects' ML tags/IRC channels, to replace them by focus areas? For example, having [storage] to group people from [cinder] or [manila]. Do you think that would help new contributors, or communication in the community?

If the focus area is important enough, it should probably be a SIG and
use that as the channel / ML subject tag. For example, as bare metal
concerns grew larger than just Ironic, a "Bare Metal" SIG was created.
If there is a need to discuss common "storage" topics beyond "manila",
"cinder" and "swift" topics, I suspect we'd use [storage] naturally.

> [...]
> G) What do you think of the elections process for the TC? Do you think it is good enough to gather a team to work on hard problems? Or do you think electing person per person have an opposite effect, highlighting individuals versus a common program/shared objectives? Corollary: Do you think we should now elect TC members by groups (of 2 or 3 persons for example), so that we would highlight their program vs highlight individual ideas/qualities?

The general idea of behind electing individuals was to get a plurality
of views. I feel like if we elected groups of people under a similar
"party" or "program" that would (1) reduce the diversity of views and
(2) encourage party politics instead of consensus decisions.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)