Open Stack

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:16 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> Excerpts from Melvin Hillsman's message of 2018-09-21 10:18:26 -0500:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 9:41 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Excerpts from Melvin Hillsman's message of 2018-09-20 17:30:32 -0500:
> > > > Hey everyone,
> > > >
> > > > During the TC meeting at the PTG we discussed the ideal way to
> capture
> > > > user-centric feedback; particular from our various groups like SIGs,
> WGs,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Options that were mentioned ranged from a wiki page to a standalone
> > > > solution like discourse.
> > > >
> > > > While there is no perfect solution it was determined that Storyboard
> > > could
> > > > facilitate this. It would play out where there is a project group
> > > > openstack-uc? and each of the SIGs, WGs, etc would have a project
> under
> > > > this group; if I am wrong someone else in the room correct me.
> > > >
> > > > The entire point is a first step (maybe final) in centralizing
> > > user-centric
> > > > feedback that does not require any extra overhead be it cost, time,
> or
> > > > otherwise. Just kicking off a discussion so others have a chance to
> chime
> > > > in before anyone pulls the plug or pushes the button on anything and
> we
> > > > settle as a community on what makes sense.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I like the idea of tracking the information in storyboard. That
> > > said, one of the main purposes of creating SIGs was to separate
> > > those groups from the appearance that they were "managed" by the
> > > TC or UC. So, rather than creating a UC-focused project group, if
> > > we need a single project group at all, I would rather we call it
> > > "SIGs" or something similar.
> > >
> >
> > What you bring up re appearances makes sense definitely. Maybe we call it
> > openstack-feedback since the purpose is focused on that and I actually
> > looked at -uc as user-centric rather than user-committee; but
> appearances :)
>
> Feedback implies that SIGs aren't engaged in creating OpenStack, though,
> and I think that's the perception we're trying to change.
>
> > I think limiting it to SIGs will well, limit it to SIGs, and again could
> > appear to be specific to those groups rather than for example the Public
> > Cloud WG or Financial Team.
>
> OK, I thought those groups were SIGs.
>
> Maybe we're overthinking the organization on this. What is special about
> the items that would be on this list compared to items opened directly
> against projects?
>

Yeah unfortunately we do have a tendency to overthink/complicate things.
Not saying Storyboard is the right tool but suggested rather than having
something extra to maintain was what I understood. There are at least 3
things that were to be addressed:

- single pane so folks know where to provide/see updates
- it is not a catchall/dumpsite
  - something still needs to be flushed out/prioritized (Public Cloud WG's
missing features spreadsheet for example)
- not specific to a single project (i thought this was a given since there
is already a process/workflow for single project)

I could very well be wrong so I am open to be corrected. From my
perspective the idea in the room was to not circumvent anything internal
but rather make it easy for external viewers, passerbys, etc. When feedback
is gathered from Ops Meetup, OpenStack Days, Local meetups/events, we
discussed putting that here as well.


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

-- 
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhillsman at gmail.com
mobile: (832) 264-2646
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20180921/f113bf18/attachment.html>