Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
>> 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?

Yes, I think that would be useful. Happy to help.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)