Open Stack

On 03/04/16 14:20, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee
>> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the
>> User Committee and (imho) should vote for it.
> [...]
>
> Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The
> purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
> for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
> all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
> important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
> hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
> upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
> directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
> least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
> all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
> User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
> users).
I have been following this as a silent bystander for a while - and we
have come full circle. And again here we bring up an old issue.

(And forgive me Jeremy that you were the one whose mail triggered my
response - this is not directed at you personally, or any specific
person - but the OpenStack Community as a whole)

Should ops contributors be accepted as ATC's?

I have been saying this for a while - and I will continue singing this
song for as long as I can - hopefully until someone listens.

Operator contributions to OpenStack are no less important or no less
equal than that of anyone writing code or translating UI's or writing
documentation.

By saying that someone who contributes to OpenStack - but doing so by
not writing code are not entitled to any technical say in what
directions OpenStack should pursue or how OpenStack should be governed,
is IMHO a weird (to put it nicely) perception of equality.

> I worry that "ATC means I get into events for free" is conflating
> two completely incidental factors and causes focus on the wrong
> issues. Let's figure out how to get the community better involved in
> these events, but making everyone an "ATC" isn't really the solution
> to that problem.
So I see two options.

1. Ops Contributors are considered Active Technical Contributors - just
the same as anyone writing code - or fixing a spelling mistake in
documentation (and yes submitting a patch to correct a typo in a
document - does give you ATC status). Their contributions are just as
important to the success of the community as anyone else.

or

2. Give Ops contributors a different status (whatever the name may be) -
and change the governance laws to allow these people with this status a
voting right in the Technical committee. They have as much right as any
other contributor to cast their opinion on how the TC should govern and
what direction it should choose.

By alienating Operators (and yes it is harsh word - but that is the
feeling that many Operators - me included - have at the moment) from
having a say in - how OpenStack should run, what release cycles should
be - what the other side of the fence is experiencing each and every day
due to problems in OpenStack's past and possible potential trouble with
the future - reminds me of a time in the not so far back history where
not all men/women were equal.

Where some were allowed to vote, and others not - they were told that
others could decide for them - because those others knew what was best.

*Forgive the rant.*

-- 
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing