Open Stack

+1 for *quantifiable output(s)* as 'measure of success' for successful
working groups.

TL;DR= Disclaimer: the below is mostly anecdotal, very happy to engage in a
conversation for what others feel are patterns of success for a [User]-WG.

For example, WGs which have clear outputs like the following are the ones
whose membership increases (as opposed to long-standing 'talk shop' WGs,
whose membership slowly fades[1] <-- from my observations).

Examples of WG task success IMHO [2]:

 - The Scientific-WG (lead by Cambridge Uni) produced the HPC atop
OpenStack book, of which ~250 copies were given out at Super Computing,
with significant BoF and panels attendance as quantifiable evidence of
their success.

 - The AppEco-WG (lead by Intel) produced their report / whitePaper on
API/SDK usability which lead to the creation ShadeSDK training which has
been used to help get 500+ hackathon participants using OpenStack as part
of their hacks.

 - The Fault-Genes-WG has a database of examples they are curating planned
along with accompany white paper.

- The Enterprise-WG has an 'Moving Apps to OpenStack' book currently being
completed.

- The CloudAppHack-WG (with a wonderfully simple remit) provides
coordination, advice and guidance to community members who want to run an
'application hackathon' (and connects them with the sponsors required to do
so).

I'd really like to see the PublicClouds-WG start with, "what are some tasks
which group members need to do already as part of their day job, and whom
else might want to jump in and help because it benefits their job's
remit'.  Often it is 1-3 people who are the driving force behind these
outputs with the rest of WG acting as an essential sounding board.

[1]= NB there is a good place for WGs who are 'talk shops' as well, but
with the understanding that their should be a declared time limit and date
for achieving a public declaration (and close of the WG).  See 'Boston Open
Science Cloud Congress and forthcoming Declaration' efforts.

[2]= As per all my public correspondence, this is me responding in my
capacity as a community member (not necessarily the PoV of the Foundation).

Best, Flanders


On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> On 11/15/2016 02:43 AM, matt Jarvis wrote:
> > I'd like to propose that, in line with the new process for creation of
> > working groups, we set up some initial IRC meetings for all interested
> > parties.
>
> I'll be glad to read summaries and participate to conversations on the
> mailing list on this topic. I can't commit to join IRC meetings.
>
> > The goals for these initial meetings would be :
> >
> > 1. Define the overall scope and mission statement for the working group
>
> I would suggest to make sure scope and mission include a very
> quantifiable output of the WG, as this is not clear to me at the moment.
> What is this group hoping to produce?
>
> Cheers,
> stef
>
>
> PS I read all the messages on this mailing list, you don't need to
> explicitly cc me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>



-- 
=================
Twitter: @DFFlanders <https://twitter.com/dfflanders>
Skype: david.flanders
Based in Melbourne, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20161125/b5931c8f/attachment-0001.html>