[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [tc] Who is allowed to vote for TC candidates
morgan.fainberg at gmail.com
Fri May 1 22:08:38 UTC 2015
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Adam Lawson <alawson at aqorn.com> wrote:
> I purposely didn't email the general mailing list since I didn't want to
> cross-post, hard to have these discussions across verticals and choosing
> one list = hearing one community - those subscribed to the developer
> mailing list.
> So I'm not assuming anything, it seems some are suggesting that Operators
> get into code review to quantify their role as an engaged Operator. Is that
> a correct statement? Just want to make sure I'm hearing correctly. I try to
> avoid absolutes but personally speaking for the record, I don't believe the
> answer lies with asking Operators to become code reviewers on top of
> everthing else they're doing in order for them to have a voice in the TC
> elections. If code reviews are being suggested (again, assuming the
> assumption is correct for the sake of making my point), technical
> contribution extends far beyond uploading and reviewing code. This
> alternate means to gain ATC status seems like a potential candidate for
> those who want to review code but not for those who are day-to-day
> operators engaging with the community.
Specification review is a far cry from code review. Specification review is
really about direction / impact. Operator imput on specifications can be
extremely valuable (e.g. "This doesn't meet any of our needs, but it's
close. Here are some suggestions to make it meet more needs/closer to
It is one of the ways operators can be involved and get ATC status. It may
not be the only way that operators should be involved.
> Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are
> meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input?
> Given this conversation involves the Operator community as well, I went
> ahead and CC'd them to hopefully capture their specific thoughts/ideas on
> the subject.
> *Adam Lawson*
> AQORN, Inc.
> 427 North Tatnall Street
> Ste. 58461
> Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
> Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
> International: +1 302-387-4660
> Direct: +1 916-246-2072
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Fainberg <
> morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>> > The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see
>>> > what is being proposed and give input.
>>> > Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be the
>>> > operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the equivalent
>>> > operator/user definition is less clear.
>>> I think spec review participation is a great example of where it would
>>> make sense to grant extra ATC status. If someone provides valuable spec
>>> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to
>>> approve their ATC status if proposed.
>> This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is
>> looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec
>> process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the contributions.
>> This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation.
>>> Russell Bryant
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-operators