Open Stack

If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, then
I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has become a
name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more useable, and
more functional for those who would use/deploy (and fix, update, enhance)
it.  And somehow that's been connected to touching the codebase directly.
This implies that an architectural discussion that changes OpenStack, but
doesn't initiate a code change is not an ATC worthy event.

So let's fix this, and if a proposal is needed how about:

Active Technical Contributions are those that improve OpenStack either
directly by impacting the code base, or indirectly by making OpenStack
useable.

Robert

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:20:44PM +0000, 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).
>
> At the risk of drifting off topic that concern "letting all of
> OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the User
> Committee (UC)" is largely why the UC hasn't expanded to include
> elected positions.
>
> As currently written bylaws define the UC as 3 appointed positions. !
> appointed by TC one by the board and the third by thte other two (FYI
> I'm currently sitting in the TC apointed seat).  The by laws further
> allow the UC to add seats elected by all foundation members.  In
> Tokyo summit sessions where expantion was discussed the consensus was
> to encourage more volunteer participation but not to add more formal
> seats because there was no way to properly define the voting
> constituency. Personally I can see both sides of that argument, but
> the sense of the room was not to add elected positions untill we can
> better deifne the constituency (that discussion could be reopened but
> if you'd like to do so please start a new thread)
>
> Perhaps nailing down this definition for recognition can actually have
> broader implications and help to define who elects the UC.  It would
> take a by-law change of course, but atleast we'd actually have a good
> proposal (which we currently don't).
>
> -Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160304/37135bb5/attachment.html>