In general I would prefer TC take an active role regarding exploring new use cases and technology directions leverage the existing OpenStack infrastructure. I would against TC being too active on project level governance.
For example we have been discussing about edge computing recently and we don't have any idea on how a lightweight OpenStack should look like: maybe no scheduling since edge is more about provisioning ? maybe a Rust implementation of this lightweight version of OpenStack ? There are so many interesting new things that yet to be explored and should be championed by the TC. However regarding issues like how a project should govern itself, it is better for TC to reactive and let project team driven its own structure. I can't think of there is any concrete example on this matter now since TC has been doing rather well on this matter , but I guess this could be a precautious action :) On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-04-23 09:27:09 -0400: > > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking > > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community > > understand their positions before considering how to vote in the > > ongoing election.] > > > > We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough, > > in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other > > issues that affect the entire community. > > > > Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive > > and how that was shown to be the right choice over time. > > > > Please describe another case where the choice to be active or > > reactive ended up being the wrong choice. > > > > If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change > > than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture, > > etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not > > which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to > > organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the > > community culture). > > > > If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change > > overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be > > taking an active role in implementing. > > > > Doug > > There was a question from ttx on IRC [1] about my use of the terms > "active" and "reactive" here. I mean active as "going out there and > doing things and anticipating issues" and reactive as "dealing with > things as they come up and aren't resolved in another way". > > Doug > > [1] > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/% > 23openstack-tc.2018-04-23.log.html > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang Standard Engineer IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen (Previous) Research Assistant Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2 University of California, Irvine Email: zhipe...@uci.edu Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402 OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__________________________________________________________________________ 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