On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chris Dent <cdent...@anticdent.org> wrote: > > _This is published both as email and a blog post._ > > # Intro > > As promised, here's my first attempt at providing a weekly overview > of what's happening with the TC. The structure here is subject to > change as I figure out what makes sense. Suggestions welcome. > > This one is short because it is based on today. Next week's will be > based on the entire week. > > # Meeting > > ## Settling in the new folk > > Welcoming the new people and covering house rules[^1]. The fun part > of this was by the 5th minute of the meeting we had already > identified a lack of shared understanding on when to use a > code-review vote and when to use a rollcall vote. There were a few > different opinions. Before I get accused of casting shade before > I've even started I think a) different opinions are _great_, b) > highlighting those differences (so we can resolve them) even more so. > > One opinion that seemed to make sense was that code-review was for > expressing a comment on the correctness of the content (as in, a -1 > is for many spelling mistakes, or poorly formatted yaml) and > rollcall is the actual vote being made on the proposed change (yes, > this is something I agree with; no, I disagree). > > [^1]: <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/house-rules.html> > > ## User Survey findings > > Summary info about the findings of the user survey[^2]. Good question > from the sidelines about the same big issues coming up in the > findings of every survey. This then led to questions about what > impact can the TC have in driving corporate contributors to focus on > those issues (such as long term support and upgrade difficulty). > There's a ever present need to make sure that stuff is effectively > highlighted. > > Which then moved to the complicated problem of OpenStack moving both > too fast and too slow at the same time, depending on who was > looking. And the difficulty with lack of centralized control over > the technical direction of OpenStack and (probably most importantly) > the application of resources. It turned into a bit of black hole so > the decision was to move the discussion to the mailing list, which I > hope actually happens. > > heidijoy is going to provide some further analysis of "net promoter > scores" to see what correlations exists. I was curious whether > openstack devs like openstack more or less than other respondents. > > [^2]: <https://www.openstack.org/user-survey/survey-2017> > > ## Maybe dropping the meeting > > Flavio has introduced a proposal to drop the regularly scheduled TC > meeting[^3] in favor of more mailing list discussion and more ad-hoc > meetings. This is something that could greatly change how the > community interacts with the TC, so if you have a preference you can > state it on the review. > > [^3]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459848/> > > # Other Stuff in Progress > > ## Draft vision for the TC > > It's 2019 and the TC is looking back on itself[^4]. This is an exercise > to think about where the TC wants to be in the future, and from > there derive some goals to get there. From some of the feedback it > is pretty clear that not everyone understands the nature of the > exercise. This isn't a plan of action, more of a limbering exercise > to figure out a plan of action. > > As you've probably seen there's been a big push to get feedback on > this. It's worth providing. > > [^4]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/> > > ## Lingering Proposals > > The following proposals are languishing, awaiting either feedback or > further effort from the author. If these matter to you, you can add > your voice. > > * [Add tag > assert:never-breaks-compat](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/446561/) > * [deprecate postgresql in > OpenStack](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427880/) > * [Describe what upstream support > means](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/440601/) > > # Colophon > > This is intentionally a biased and incomplete view of events. I > can't hope to report things objectively or completely so it is > better to be open about it and hope that if there is disagreement > with my interpretation of events or what I felt was worth mentioning > people will respond saying so. Responses, engagement, feedback are > the entire point for doing these. If, over time, my interpretation > proves to be too out of bounds maybe someone else will start their > own newsletter. And then after a while every member of the TC will > be writing their own report.
Please keep doing that, I find it very useful. Thanks, > -- > Chris Dent ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ) https://anticdent.org/ > freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Emilien Macchi __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev