Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2019-12-04 09:45:48 -0500 (-0500), Mohammed Naser wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> I'm also wondering if the advisory board should not also include seats
>>> for the infrastructure donors... Since we should definitely be making
>>> sure Opendev goes in a direction that encourages them to continue
>>> investing in (or increase) the resources that they give us.
>>
>> I wanted to bring this up but indeed, I think that as an infrastructure
>> donor, there is a significant investment from our side and knowing
>> where and how that's going is important
> 
> Yep, you mentioned it at the PTG and I think it's a great idea. Not
> only does it provide a means for technical representatives from our
> resource donors to give more direct feedback and even debate topics
> between one another, it also gives the OpenDev sysadmins a clearer
> point of contact when they need to reach out to those same donors.
> 
> Combining with Thierry's idea, perhaps there are two advisory boards
> for OpenDev, one for the projects participating in it and one for
> the resource donors? Or would they be better combined into a single
> advisory board?

For the sake of simplicity I'd suggest having a single 
stakeholders/advisory board, especially if we don't expect those boards 
to formally vote (one seat = one vote style) on motions. The main idea, 
as you mentioned, is to have clear contact points and get their feedback 
on priorities and direction.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)