[Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

Robert Starmer robert at kumul.us
Fri Mar 4 17:12:20 UTC 2016


So when a user manages a discussion across a group of operators, who's
input is then fed into the development teams who are developing the
software, and in such a way are supporting the development cycle, would
those downstream users (I'm not touching the code), not also be ATCs?  The
discussions are technical, they are active, and they are hopefully
contributing to the codebase.  But the venue, and resources involved are
clearly users.

How do you differentiate that.

But I'll also say, we are now _way_ off topic.  The point that drove a lot
of this discussion wasn't wether Ops should get ATC (perhaps needs a
separate thread, as I believe strongly that they should), but wether there
was a model by which the downstream users could be recognized for their
contributions to making OpenStack functional.  Hence the concept that
perhaps for now, it makes sense to have a different title, and still allow
folks to go to conferences where they can continue to engage with the
community, at a technical level, to further all of our goals at growing
OpenStack.

I still think we should go with TOC/IRO/ACC or whatever, and discuss what a
technical contribution might be separately.

Robert



On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2016-03-04 16:34:27 +0200 (+0200), Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
> [...]
>
> Conversely, you're arguing for an expansion of scope for the TC. Its
> charter right now gives it power to govern the activities of the
> groups which produce the software and documentation which make up
> OpenStack. We have a separate governing body, the UC, which is
> intended to represent the people who deploy, run and interact with
> OpenStack software. Are you saying the UC should be dissolved and
> everyone it formerly represented should come under the jurisdiction
> of the TC? Or that we should all be represented by both the TC and
> UC no matter what our involvement with the OpenStack
> community/ecosystem might be? Or something else entirely?
>
> Governance in OpenStack is a two-way street, and the people whose
> actions are governed choose who governs those actions. Any increase
> in scope of possible voters is an equal increase in scope for the
> body governing them, and I don't personally think we should hand the
> TC additional jurisdiction outside its present charter.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160304/321a06fc/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list