Open Stack

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> Melvin Hillsman wrote:
>> Thank you all who were able to attend the Forum session on unanswered
>> requirements. Based our discussion we decided to draft up a proposal for
>> SIGs (special interest groups)[1] along with a governance model based
>> off draft by UC for teams/wgs [2] whose outputs would follow a workflow
>> proposed by the product working group (team)[3]. Proposals are tracked
>> via the proposed feature tracker[4] and work via storyboard[5].
>> 
>> Can we get together to ensure that we continue on the momentum of the
>> discussion(s) during the Forum and hash out any further items around the
>> proposal and get it to the mailing lists for feedback from the community?[6]
> 
> Thanks for pushing this, Melvin! Just replied to the Doodle poll.
> 
> On the workgroup/SIG side, I think we need to be careful not to put too
> many procedural barriers preventing work to be organically done (for
> example, force a need to have a workgroup blessed before it can do
> anything).
> 
> My preferred approach would be to keep TC-driven project teams (for
> upstream development) and UC-driven workgroups (for subgroups working on
> UC-driven initiatives, like Ops-tags or the AUC recognition). We would
> create a "SIG" concept for everything else (including API WG or Large
> deployments WG) that just requires to be listed on a wiki page to exist.

I like that.

Does it make sense to work through some wording asynchronously before we try to schedule a meeting?

> 
> That way for things that are purely TC/upstream or UC/downstream work
> we'd still keep our teams (with our own approval process), but we would
> have an organic and open process for any other group wanting to get
> together to do work on OpenStack. The wiki page would force them to
> provide basic information (team scope, contact, meeting point...) but
> would avoid a costly blessing by a joint TC/UC committee.
> 
> That lightweight approach would allow for long-term teams (API SIG,
> Packaging SIG, Large deployments SIG, Telco SIG), or more tactical
> pop-up teams that would get dissolved once their objective is reached
> (Hierarchical Quotas SIG, Logging SIG). We would of course still retain
> the power to dissolve a SIG that is out of scope or abandoned (ask for
> forgiveness rather than ask for permission).
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)