[all][tc][uc] Uniting the TC and the UC

Jimmy McArthur jimmy at openstack.org
Tue Feb 25 18:05:41 UTC 2020

> Thanks a lot, ttx for starting this thread.
> option 1 looks more feasible way but few question/feedback:
> - How we will execute the "designate 5 members from TC and select UC chair"?
> If by volunteer call from TC?
> I think this can lead to the current situation where very few members are interested to
> serve as UC.  I am afraid that we will get 5 volunteers and a chair.
> If by force?
> I do not think this is or should be an option :). But if then how we make sure the TC
> members are ok/good to handle the UC tasks on the non-technical side for example
> ambassador program.
We have dedicated Foundation Staff that offer support for the Ambassador 
Program as well as User Survey.  I don't have concerns about this 
falling between the cracks during the transition and it's something we 
can work with the new UC seats under the TC on.

> - Will there be any change in TC elections, votes weightage and nomination? by this change
> of a new subteam under TC?
> - I think along with the merging proposal, we should distribute the current tasks handled by UC
> among TC, Ops group, foundation etc. For example, the ambassador program, local user group
> interaction or any other managerial tasks should be excluded from TC scope.
> If we would like to merge all then I think we should rename TC to Steering Committee or
> something which is option 3.
> - What about merging UC into Ops team, they are more close to users/operators and active
> in terms of the meetup and providing feedback etc.
> -gmann
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org 
>> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>>
>> *Subject: **Re: [all][tc][uc] Uniting the TC and the UC*
>> *Date: *February 25, 2020 at 11:36:06 AM CST
>> *To: *openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org 
>> <mailto:openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org>
>> Tim Bell wrote:
>>> Are there some stats on the active electorate sizes ?
>>> I have the impression that the voting AUCs were a smaller number of 
>>> people than the contributors so a single election may result in less 
>>> total representation compared to today’s UC & TC.
>> I don't have the exact numbers around, but yes, there are many more 
>> ATCs (voters in the current TC election) than AUCs (voters in the 
>> current UC election).
>> So it's a valid concern that people with more of an operator 
>> background would have trouble getting elected if the electorate 
>> contains more people with more of a developer background.
>> But I think it's a fallacy. There is plenty of overlap. Most engaged 
>> operators are already ATCs, and more and more contributors have 
>> operational experience. Data points show that when people with more 
>> operational background have nominated themselves for the TC in recent 
>> elections, they got elected. 10 of the 13 TC seats are currently 
>> occupied by people with some decent amount of operational experience.
>> So yes, we clearly need to communicate that people with 
>> operational/usage experience are wanted in that new body. We need to 
>> communicate that there is a change, and a single body will now 
>> steward all aspects of the open source projects and not just the 
>> upstream aspects. But I'm not obsessing on the fact that a single 
>> election would somehow suppress operator voices...
>> The problem recently has more been to find enough people willing to 
>> step up and spend extra time stewarding OpenStack, than to actually 
>> get elected.
>> -- 
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200225/b5378c29/attachment.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list