Open Stack

On 1/17/19 11:11 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [with my jester's cap on]

Hey, Foundation folks, I have an idea for swag at the next summit. ;-)

And so this isn't a completely content-less email, I will provide my 
perspective on the actual topic of the thread too.

Reading the document, it seems to me that it describes less a 
"Technical" Committee and more a "Governance" Committee. It's right 
there in first two headings, and I would argue that the collaboration 
and maybe scope sections fit better with that too. I will grant that the 
release goals don't really fit my theory as those are technical first 
and foremost, but they're also sort of the exception not the rule.

When I vote for members of a body with "technical" in its name, I expect 
those people to be driving the technical direction of the project. Per 
the document, and based on my past observation of the TC, I would say 
that it has actively avoided driving the technical direction of 
OpenStack in favor of the bottom-up philosophy mentioned elsewhere in 
this thread. That has always created some cognitive dissonance for me.

I feel like a lot of the discussion in this thread has been around 
whether the TC should be a primarily technical body or a primarily 
governance body. While I don't want to get lost bikeshedding over 
naming, I hadn't previously considered that maybe the TC isn't (and 
shouldn't be?) an actual technical group. I'm not sure I have a definite 
answer for that right now though, so consider this a WIP opinion and 
maybe a useful alternate way of looking at the question.

-Ben