[User-committee] Unanswered Requirements Proposal Meeting

Melvin Hillsman mrhillsman at gmail.com
Mon May 29 22:58:24 UTC 2017


Hey everyone, apologies for my delay in responding Thierry and Doug, been out of pocket for about a week. I like getting the wording together. Please use the proposed dates as just opportunities for us to get together if necessary or required.

> On May 29, 2017, at 10:30, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> 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)



More information about the User-committee mailing list