Open Stack

On 9/5/2019 5:33 AM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>   ---- 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).
Agreed.  I think that partially falls into the community's hands 
itself.  I have spent years advocating for OpenStack in my company and 
have started having success.  The problem is that it is a slow process.  
I am hoping that others are doing the same and we will start seeing a 
reverse in the trend.  Otherwise, I think we need help from the 
foundation leadership to reach out and start re-engaging companies.
>
> 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 had this thought, but it is quite likely that then I would not be able 
to contribute anymore.  :-(  So, I fear that could be a slippery slope 
for many people.
>
> 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
>
>