Open Stack

Matt Riedemann wrote:
> [...]
> I want to see the TC be more of a cross-project project management
> group, like a group of Ildikos and what she did between nova and cinder
> to get volume multi-attach done, which took persistent supervision to
> herd the cats and get it delivered. Lance is already trying to do this
> with unified limits. Doug is doing this with the python3 goal. I want my
> elected TC members to be pushing tangible technical deliverables forward.
> 
> I don't find any value in the TC debating ad nauseam about visions and
> constellations and "what is openstack?". Scope will change over time
> depending on who is contributing to openstack, we should just accept
> this. And we need to realize that if we are failing to deliver value to
> operators and users, they aren't going to use openstack and then "what
> is openstack?" won't matter because no one will care.
> [...]

I agree that we generally need more of those cross-project champions,
and generally TC members are in a good position to do that kind of work.
The TC itself is also in a good position to "bless" those initiatives
and give them some amount of priority (with our limited influence).

I'm just a bit worried to limit that role to the elected TC members. If
we say "it's the role of the TC to do cross-project PM in OpenStack"
then we artificially limit the number of people who would sign up to do
that kind of work. You mention Ildiko and Lance: they did that line of
work without being elected.

So I would definitely support having champions to drive SIG
cross-project priorities, and use the TC both to support them and as a
natural pool of champion candidates -- I would just avoid tying the role
to the elected group?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)