Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:

> I was thinking about this, and I think that we should do a spec for
> the proposed changes in our shiny new spec repo when we've finished
> the discussion round. That will force us to publicly document things
> like the problem we think we're solving, which is important for
> explaining any changes we make to ATCs.
>

After thinking about this further, a spec/resolution capturing the "why"
should do the trick. The issue I was trying to wrap my head around was the
'why' and the implications for operators/users (saying ATC before was a
mistake), and I hear TC members are relaying thoughts from operators whom
would rather not do so in very public forums.



>
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> > Joe Gordon wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> >> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hi, fellow TC members,
> >>
> >>     After a noisy ML thread, opinionated blogposts, and strawmen on
> Gerrit,
> >>     we are at a stage where we seek potential convergence between TC
> members
> >>     around a common proposal (before we put it in words and RFC to the
> wider
> >>     community). This phase started as informal in-person discussions in
> >>     Paris, and we set up TC 5-members hangouts (2 so far) to continue
> that
> >>     discussion over a high-bandwidth medium. This email summarizes the
> >>     progress so far for everyone to know.
> >>
> >>     Note that there is little point in commenting on this thread, the
> >>     discussion is still very much at its early stages and we don't know
> yet
> >>     what the final proposal will be (nor if it will be truly consensual
> >>     amongst the TC members). At this point I prefer we continue to
> solidify
> >>     it in high-bandwidth discussions between TC members.
> >>
> >>
> >> I know you said there is little point in commenting on this thread, but
> >> I do have one comment to add anyway.
> >>
> >> While I am excited to see the TC working towards a collective opinion.
> >> There is one group that I would really like to hear from in this debate,
> >> the ATC community (including stackforge) as a whole.  IMHO TC members
> >> and active community members alike are too close to the problem to see
> >> all perspectives. Furthermore I don't know what the most common
> >> opinion(s) is on project structure reform.
> >>
> >> To that end, I would like to propose polling ATC members to get some
> >> rough numbers on where the community as a whole stands on this issue.
> >> Based on the summary below it looks like project structure reform has
> >> now been broken down into several smaller concrete questions, perhaps we
> >> can take those and turn them into a poll. The results of this poll would
> >> naturally be non-binding and only there to help the TC converge on a
> >> solution.
> >
> > At this point the "concrete questions" are just artifacts in the
> > difficult and long process of converging to a potential solution, so I
> > think it's too early to poll. We haven't even included all TC members in
> > that discussion yet, and some points are very likely to completely
> > disappear at the next iteration. I posted this status report for
> > transparency, but it is far from being anything solid yet.
> >
> > There have been a number of proposals posted already (in blog posts, on
> > Gerrit), but mostly by individuals. This exercise is to see if there
> > could be a middle ground between those individual proposals. I'm
> > optimistic that there can be (since I would hate to come down to a close
> > vote on such an important issue), but I fear that polling on
> > intermediate steps of that discussion will only disrupt that delicate
> > process and bring us back to a polarized debate where no one will bulge.
> >
> > I'm hoping we can get to something we can propose and RFC on by the end
> > of this month.
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>
>
>
> --
> Rackspace Australia
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20141126/e0714341/attachment.html>