Open Stack

Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 5:32 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
>> The most obvious change would be that your discussions would move to the
>> openstack-sigs ML (with a suitable prefix, like [api]). On the bright
>> side, that avoids the need to cross-post between -dev and -operators,
>> but until "everyone" is on the new list, a few reminder posts might be
>> necessary to point people on those lists to the new medium.
> 
> We discussed this a bit more at the API-WG meeting last week, and had both positive and negative feelings about this - often on the same points.
> 
> For one: we are very small in number. Would converting to a SIG stretch these limited resources farther than we can handle? Or would it attract enough new blood to more than make up for it? Or would there be no net change at all? I’m not expecting an answer to this, as it would just be guessing; I’m just continuing the discussion here.
> 
> Would anyone have any ideas about this? Would you expect an increase, decrease, or no net change in workload? 

I would expect an increase in resources with a similar workload.

The workload is the same, since the group would still have the very same
scope and expected outputs. The rebranding (and move to a new common
communication ML) is signaling that the group is not an upstream or a
downstream workgroup, it is just an OpenStack workgroup, and everyone is
welcome. People who previously hesitated to join *might* take that step
once we remove the artificial barriers to entry.

The API WG is a bit of an off case: it started as a UC workgroup, which
did not really manage to feed back into development and was slowly
dying, until it was reborn as an upstream workgroup, with developers
involved. That was more successful in getting guidance adopted by
upstream devs, but the connection to users was a bit lost in the process.

Based on that history, I would say that classifying it as an upstream or
downstream workgroup hurt the API WG in the past. The SIG initiative is
all about clearly saying that work groups don't have to be on one side
or the other, they can just be groups of OpenStack humans wanting to
achieve some objective together, without having governance (or
mailing-list boundaries) get into the way. There is really nothing more
to it :)

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)