In case people have missed it, Jim Blair sent an email recently to shed some light on where Zuul is headed [1].
[1]: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128396.html David Moreau Simard Senior Software Engineer | OpenStack RDO dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Chris Dent <cdent...@anticdent.org> wrote: > > HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-12.html > > This week's TC Report goes off in the weeds a bit with the editorial > commentary from yours truly. I had trouble getting started, so had > to push myself through some thinking by writing stuff that at least > for the last few weeks I wouldn't normally be including in the > summaries. After getting through it, I realized that the reason I > was struggling is because I haven't been including these sorts of > things. Including them results in a longer and more meandering report > but it is more authentically my experience, which was my original > intention. > > # Zuul Extraction and the Difficult Nature of Communication > > Last [Tuesday > Morning](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-13.log.html#t2018-03-13T17:22:38) > we had some initial discussion about Zuul being extracted from > OpenStack governance as a precursor to becoming part of the CI/CD > strategic area being born elsewhere in the OpenStack Foundation. > > Then on > [Thursday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:08:06) > we revisited the topic, especially as it related to how we > communicate change in the community and how we invite participation > in making decisions about change. In this case by "community" we're > talking about anything under the giant umbrella of "stuff associated > with the OpenStack Foundation". > > Plenty of people expressed that though they were not surprised by > the change, it was because they are insiders and could understand > how some, who are not, might be surprised by what seemed like a big > change. This led to addressing the immediate shortcomings and > clarifying the history of the event. > > There was also > [concern](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:27:22) > that some of the reluctance to talk openly about the change appeared > to stem from needing to preserve the potency of a Foundation marketing > release. > > I [expressed some > frustration](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:36:50): > "...as usual, we're getting caught up in > details of a particular event (one that in the end we're all happy > to see happen), rather than the general problem we saw with it > (early transparency etc). Solving the immediate problem is easy, but > since we _keep doing it_, we've got a general issues to resolve." > > We went round and round about the various ways in which we have tried > and failed to do good communication in the past, and while we make > some progress, we fail to establish a pattern. As Doug [pointed > out](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-15.log.html#t2018-03-15T15:41:33), > no method can be 100% successful, but if we pick a method and stick to > it, people can learn that method. > > We have a cycle where we not only sometimes communicate poorly but > we also communicate poorly about that poor communication. So when I > come round to another week of writing this report, and am reminded > that these issues persist and I am once again communicating about > them, it's frustrating. Communicating, a lot, is generally a good > thing, but if things don't change as a result, that can be a strain. > If I'm still writing these things in a year's time, and we haven't > managed to achieve at least a bit more grace, consistency, and > transparency in the ways that we share information within and > between groups (including, and maybe especially, the Foundation > executive wing) in the wider community, it will be a shame and I will > have a sad. > > In a somewhat related and good sign, there is [great > thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2018-March/014994.html) > on the operators list that raises the potential of merging the Ops > Meeting and the PTG into some kind of "OpenStack Community Working > Gathering". > > # Encouraging Upstream Contribution > > On > [Friday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-16.log.html#t2018-03-16T14:29:21), > tbarron raised some interesting questions about how the summit talk > selection process might relate to the [four > opens](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/opens.html). The > talk eventually led to a positive plan to try bring some potential > contributors upstream in advance of summit as, well as to work to > create more clear guidelines for track chairs. > > # Executive Power > > I had a question at [this morning's office > hour](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-20.log.html#t2018-03-20T09:00:00), > related to some work in the API-SIG that hasn't had a lot of traction, > about how best to explain how executive power is gained and spent > in a community where we intentionally spread power around a lot. As > with communication above, this is a topic that comes up a fair > amount, and investigating the underlying patterns can be > instructive. > > My initial reaction on the topic was the fairly standard (but in > different words): If this is important to you, step up and make it > happen. > > I think, however, that when we discuss these things we fail to take > enough account of the nature of OpenStack as a professional open > source environment. Usually, nonhierarchical, consensual > collaborations are found in environments where members represent > their own interests. > > In OpenStack our interactions are sometimes made more complex (and > alienating) by virtue of needing to represent the interests of a > company or other financial interest (including the interest of > keeping our nice job) while at the same time not having the recourse > of being able to complain to someone's boss when they are difficult > (because that boss is part of a different hierarchy than the one you > operate in). We love (rightfully so) the grand project which is > OpenStack, and want to preserve and extend as much as possible the > beliefs in things that make it feel unique, like "influence tokens". > But we must respect that these things are collectively agreed > hallucinations that require regular care and feeding, and balance > them against the surrounding context which is not operating with > those agreements. > > Further, those of us who have leeway to spend time building > influence tokens are operating from a position of privilege. One of > the ways we sustain that position is by behaving as if those tokens > are more readily available to more people than they really are. > > /me wipes brow > > # TC Elections Coming > > The next round of TC elections will be coming up in late April. If > you're thinking about it, but feel like you need more information > about what it might entail, please feel free to contact me. I'm sure > most of the other TC members would be happy to share their thoughts > as well. > > -- > Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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