Open Stack

Yih Leong, Sun. wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-09-26 17:10:43 +0100:
> 
>> That sounds like a good idea. That said, one of the goals behind SIGs is
>> that they are open to developer types as much as operator types, and
>> therefore can be used as a vehicle to combine developer resources from
>> like-minded organizations around a given topic. *The SIG can come up with
>> a common priority list and have all those "internal" development
>> resources working together in implementing those priorities. *If that's
>> successful, there might not be as much need for external coordination
>> and priority exposure.
> 
> This is the similar concept in Product WG when it was first established,
> however, this model doesn't seems to pick up over the past two years
> especially with the lack of resource/developer commitment from
> organizations. I am hoping that shifting to SIG model can change the
> course to drive prioritize implementation. 

I think the model did not pick up because (1) the team working on
prioritization (PWG) was separate from the teams working on
implementation, and (2) because there were a lot of different teams
involved in implementation.

Here the team working on prioritization and the team working on
implementation are ideally the same, and there is only one team working
on implementation.

Practical example: In the Public Cloud SIG there are operators of public
clouds but also developers working for the public cloud operators and
individual devs interested in improving things in that space. They
collectively discuss pain points and priorities, and agree to pool all
the development resources in the SIG to go in the same direction and
implement the same priorities, across whichever projects are necessary.

If successful, that removes the need for external prioritization, which
(I agree with you) did not really work.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)