Open Stack

 ---- On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:04:39 +0900 Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote ----
 > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Thierry Carrez wrote:
 > 
 > > So maybe we still have the same expectations, but we are definitely reducing 
 > > our velocity... Would you say we need to better align our expectations with 
 > > our actual speed? Or that we should reduce our expectations further, to drive 
 > > velocity further down?
 > 
 > We should slow down enough that the vendors and enterprises start to
 > suffer. If they never notice, then it's clear we're trying too hard
 > and can chill out.

+1 on this but instead of slow down and make vendors suffer we need the proper
way to notify or make them understand about the future cutoff effect on OpenStack
as software. I know we have been trying every possible way but I am sure there are
much more managerial steps can be taken.  I expect Board of Director to come forward
on this as an accountable entity. TC should raise this as high priority issue to them (in meetings,
joint leadership meeting etc). 

I am sure this has been brought up before, can we make OpenStack membership company
to have a minimum set of developers to maintain upstream. With the current situation, I think
it make sense to ask them to contribute manpower also along with membership fee.  But again
this is more of BoD and foundation area. 

I agree on ttx proposal to reduce the TC number to 9 or 7, I do not think this will make any
difference or slow down on any of the TC activity. 9 or 7 members are enough in TC.

As long as we get PTL(even without an election) we are in a good position. This time only
7 leaderless projects (6 actually with Cyborg PTL missing to propose nomination in election repo and only on ML) are
not so bad number. But yes this is a sign of taking action before it goes into more worst situation. 
 
-gmann 

 > 
 > -- 
 > Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
 > freenode: cdent