Open Stack

> Please remember that openstack-tc is specifically *not* a discussion
> list. It's a convenient way to reach TC members. We should be having all
> our important discussions on open mailing-lists, not on moderated ones.
> 
> Eoghan: could you repost this email to openstack-dev or the openstack
> general ML ?

Apologies for the noise Thierry, just re-posted[1] to the dev list as
requested.

Cheers,
Eoghan

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037766.html
 
> Everyone else (TC members included): could you follow-up there ?
> 
> ( I know I let the original thread develop here, but I hate the "elite"
> feeling (and the constant moderation effort) of having the discussion
> here. The right way is to post to a public discussion list, and then if
> you want to make sure the TC is involved, send a separate email to -tc
> list pointing to the main thread and asking TC members to follow-up there. )


 
> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> > 
> > TL;DR: how about we adopt a "soft enforcement" model, relying
> >        on sound judgement and good faith within the community?
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > I'm concerned that the "expected election behaviour" review[1]
> > is not converging on the optimal approach, partially due to the
> > initial concentration on the procedural aspects of the proposal.
> > 
> > This concentration was natural enough, due to shortcomings such
> > as the lack of any provision for a right of reply, or the
> > fuzziness around who was capable of deciding a violation had
> > occurred and imposing the stiff penalties envisaged.
> > 
> > However, I think we should take a step back at this stage and
> > reconsider the whole approach. Looking at this in the round, as
> > I see it, the approach mooted seems to suffer from a fundamental
> > flaw.
> > 
> > Specifically, in holding individuals to the community code of
> > conduct in a very *strict* sense (under pain of severe career
> > damage), when much of that code is written in an aspirational
> > style, and so is not very suitable for use as an *objective*
> > standard.
> > 
> > The reference to "the spirit of the OpenStack ideals" ideals is
> > even more problematic in that sense. Ideals by their nature are
> > *idealized* versions of reality. So IMHO it's not workable to
> > infuse an aspiration to meet these laudable ideals, with the
> > language of abuse, violations, investigation, punishment etc.
> > In fact it strikes me as a tad Orwellian to do so.
> > 
> > So I wanted to throw an alternative idea out onto the table ...
> > 
> > How about we rely instead on the values and attributes that
> > actually make our community strong?
> > 
> > Specifically: maturity, honesty, and a self-correcting nature.
> > 
> > How about we simply require that each candidate for a TC or PTL
> > election gives a simple undertaking in their self-nomination mail,
> > along the lines of:
> > 
> > "I undertake to respect the election process, as required by the
> > community code of conduct.
> > 
> > I also undertake not to engage in campaign practices that the
> > community has considered objectionable in the past, including but
> > not limited to, unsolicited mail shots and private campaign events.
> > 
> > If my behavior during this election period does not live up to those
> > standards, please feel free to call me out on it on this mailing
> > list and/or withhold your vote."
> > 
> > We then rely on:
> > 
> >   (a) the self-policing nature of an honest, open community
> > 
> > and:
> > 
> >   (b) the maturity and sound judgement within that community giving
> >       us the ability to quickly spot and disregard any frivolous
> >       reports of mis-behavior
> > 
> > So no need for heavy-weight inquisitions, no need to interrupt the
> > election process, no need for handing out of stiff penalties such
> > as termination of membership.
> > 
> > Instead, we simply rely on good faith and sound judgement within
> > the community.
> > 
> > TBH I think we're pretty good at making ourselves heard when
> > needs be, and also pretty good at filtering through the noise.
> > 
> > So I would trust the electorate to apply their judgement, filter
> > out those reports of bad practice that they consider frivolous or
> > tending to make mischief, or conversely to withhold their vote if
> > they consider the practice reported to be unacceptable.
> > 
> > If someone has already cast their vote when the report of some
> > questionable behavior surfaces, well so be it. The electorate
> > has a long memory and most successful candidates end up running
> > again for subsequent elections (e.g. a follow-on term as PTL,
> > or for the TC).
> > 
> > The key strength of this alternative approach IMO is that it
> > directly relies on the *actual* values of the community, as
> > opposed to attempting to codify those values, a priori.
> > 
> > Just my $0.02 ...
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> > 
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/98675
> > [2] http://www.openstack.org/legal/community-code-of-conduct
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> > 
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>