Open Stack

Isn't this more nuanced than simply 'upstream' and 'downstream' ?
Characterising downstream as "people who help others using OpenStack, by
moderating Ops meetups, by filing bugs, by answering questions on Ask, by
contributing a blogpost, etc...". is an extremely broad church.

My assumption about this whole thread was that the point of it was to try
and recognise the operators in the middle of these two groups - who are
contributing to technical direction through active participation in ops
events, providing feedback and testing for features, contributing to the
ops codebase through osops etc. etc. etc.



On 4 March 2016 at 14:34, Maish Saidel-Keesing <maishsk at maishsk.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160304/869a2227/attachment.html>