Open Stack

Agree with both Melvin and Shamail around needing a bit of a retrospective for how we approach focusing our interest on a topic.  I think many of the WGs are challenged with involvement as they may have been created for a very specific concern, but as that was resolved that motivation became more and more diluted.  

And yeah let's not reinvent the wheel the SIG/WG model used by k8s I think is a great place to start from and their community leads may have some thoughts as well on keeping it fresh.  I think we just need to be specific on how and when we measure how we are doing on increasing user engagement (hopefully a UC/OC goal) with any change. That could be in thematic goals (e.g. Documentation SIG) or a specific mission based goal like (e.g. Upgrading O to P).  I would say on the WG side that we do need to have discipline around keeping those scoped well so that they can meet their charter and spin down.  The WG should be there so a given topic doesn't dominate the whole discussion similar to a breakout room on a conf call.

Always a challenge on the status attribution, but if the UC can swarm around a tool like k8s did with github to make work transparent (cough storyboard) than that may self-resolve.  I know not all existing UCs are focused on code like deliverables, but avoiding isolating work to the live dialog will make it more accessible for scheduling and collaboration.  Having a light amount of governance to help with those Foundation type questions and with setting expectations/scaling hopefully shouldn’t impede innovation within the specific context.  That governance also would have its own backlog as we learn from doing and can tweak the rules of engagement as needed and really shouldn't get into a gatekeeping game I would hope.

Justin Rackliffe