Open Stack

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2017-07-17 11:32:28 +0100:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> >
> > > The incentives at play in free software are mostly still the same
> > > incentives which drive other typical psychological/sociological
> > > patterns in human society. As is the case with just about anything,
> > > if you want something done right (or even at all sometimes) in
> > > OpenStack you need to do it yourself... and that's why SIGs probably
> > > need to be at least 50% comprised of people who will actually be
> > > implementing the things the SIG members want to see, or else those
> > > things ultimately won't happen.
> >
> > I agree 100% with your conclusion that sigs need to (at least
> > eventually) include the people who will be doing implementation.
> >
> > However, I think it is disingenuous to expect that free and/or open
> > source software physics plays a large part in the development of
> > OpenStack. Not simply because most of the developers are paid (well
> > paid in the grand scheme of things) to be here, nor merely because
> > many find they must leave when they no longer have an employer who
> > will sponsor their presence, nor because significant chunks of the
> > developers do not actively work (although some do) on clouds on a
> > day to day basis (so couldn't legitimately be said to be scratching an
> > itch), nor because the ability to have influence and make change is
> > often highly reliant on being willing and able to show up day in and
> > day out (not just on those days when you have an itch), nor because
> > many of the people who do have some license to choose what they do
> > in this environment choose not what they want to but what they feel
> > must be done. It is all of those things and more.
> >
> > OpenStack is a commercial enterprise to collaboratively develop a
> > suite of software with an open license. And that's great.
> >
> > But it means the physics of getting things done are not as simple
> > and hackneyed as people like to claim. I think it is perfectly
> > legitimate for people to form a group around a special interest,
> > for that interest to be important, and in the absence of available
> > people to work on it seek assistance finding those resources.
>
> I do, too. That's not how I read the proposal or other similar
> proposals that basically boil down to some group coming up with an
> idea and looking for an authority to tell people to implement it
> (at different times, I've seen variations of the board, the TC, the
> PTL, even a new "innovation TC").  My apologies to Melvin if I
> misread things, this topic makes me a bit edgy.
>

No worries, I intended for it to be edgy in hopes of getting the
conversation started.


>
> We have been successful when contributors collaborate to build the
> things they need.  We have been successful when we find ways for
> users with needs to collaborate on resolving those needs with
> contributors.  We have been less successful without the collaboration
> component.
>
> > With luck, because of the apparent obviousness of importance of the
> > need, people will gather around it. Sometimes that doesn't
> > happen. That's going to be normal because of the different
> > physics, so we need additional strategies.
> >
> > Things like community goals and the top 5 list driven by the TC can
> > help. But sometimes the needs are not visible to them and the needy
> > group is left out in the cold and has unanswered requests.
>
> I still don't like that term "unanswered." Are we really not replying
> to these things at all?  Are you using "unanswered" to mean "not
> implemented"?
>

I think I have come around to the semantic entanglement here so possibly we
should use "not implemented" and "un-proposed". I am trying to expand my
view here and that leads me at least right now to two, not implemented
because of X number of reasons, and un-proposed because of X number of
reasons.


>
> > In the past those requests have sometimes been directed to PTLs and
> > the TC. Projects are already overwhelmed and have been so for
> > years, playing a constant game of catchup or desperately trying to
> > stay afloat in the face of decreasing resources. In our current
> > commercial environment going to the projects is probably the wrong
> > place to go. Should they go to the corporate members of the board?
> >
> > We've heard arguments that OpenStack will not be able to rely on
> > corporate largesse in the future and needs to come up with ways to
> > be more driven by users and operators. That's all well and good and
> > something we should strive for for other reasons than economics.
> > While corporate entities are still making a pile of money off
> > selling OpenStack-based products and services, I think there's still
> > plenty of room for SIGs to make demands of the board.
>
> I still think before we start trying to solve the problem with some sort
> of fundamental change to our community, we should look at the details of
> the past cases and generalize from there.
>

Do you have a suggestion for some past cases we can view? I assume we would
need to gather some of those who worked on the case and get some details
that we may not find elsewhere?


>
> 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

Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/attachments/20170718/21410d71/attachment.html>