On 05/04/15 17:07, Anita Kuno wrote:
I'd like to go back to the beginning to clarify something.
On 04/29/2015 02:34 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
So I started replying to Doug's email in a different thread but didn't want
to hi-jack that so I figured I'd present my question as a more general
question about how voting is handled for the TC.
Anyway, I find it curious that the TC is elected by those within the
developer community but TC candidates talk about representing the operator
community
In my statements I talked about acknowledging the operator community not
representing them. When I speak, I represent myself and my best
understanding of a certain situation, if others find value in the
position I hold, they will let me know.
In my view of what comprises OpenStack, the TC is one point of a
triangle and the operators are an entirely different point. Trying to
get two points of a triangle to be the same thing compromises the
integrity of the structure. Each needs to play its part, not try to be
something it is not.
A three point triangle. I like the idea! Anita I assume that you are
talking about the TC[3], the board [1] and the user committee [2].
I honestly do not see this at the moment as an equally weighted triangle.
Should they be? Perhaps not, maybe yes.
It could be that my view of things is skew, but here it is.
The way to get something into OpenStack is through code.
Who submits the code? Developers.
Who approves code? Reviewers and core
On top of that you have the PTL
Above the PTL - you have the TC. They decide what is added into
OpenStack and (are supposed) drive overall direction.
These are the people that have actionable influence into what goes into
the products.
AFAIK neither the Foundation - nor the User committee have any
actionable influence into what goes into the products, what items are
prioritized and what is dropped.
If each of the three point of the triangle had proper (actionable)
influence and (actionable) say in what goes on and happens within the
OpenStack then that would be ideal. Does the representation have to be
equal? I don't think so. But it should be there somehow.
One of the points of the User Committee mission is:
"Consolidate user requirements and present these to the management board
and technical committee"
There is no mention that I could find on any of the other missions[3][1]
that says that the TC or the board have to do anything with user
requirements presented to them.
I do not know if this has ever been addressed before, but it should be
defined. A process with where the TC and collects requirements from the
User Committee or Board and with a defined process this trickles down
into the teams and projects.
My 0.02 Shekels.
There have been many helpful comments on how those operators who wish to
contribute to reviews, patches and specs as well as receive ATC status
may do so, for those operators who wish to be acknowledged as
contributors as well as being operators.
Operators have a very useful, very valuable, very necessary perspective
that is not a developer's perspective that needs to be heard and
communicated.
Thierry has made the suggestion that a strong User Committee
representing the voice of the operator would be a good direction here. I
support this suggestion. Tim Bell is working on an etherpad here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-user-committee
Thank you Adam,
Anita.
who are not allowed to vote. Operators meaning Admins,
Architects, etc. It sounds like this is something most TC candidates want
which most would agree is a good thing. At least I think so. ; )
Is it be feasible to start allowing the operator community to also cast
votes for TC candidates? Is the TC *only* addressing technical concerns
that are relevant to the development community? Since the TC candidates are
embracing the idea of representing more than just the developer community,
it would /seem/ the voters electing the TC members should include the
communities being represented. If the TC only addresses developer concerns,
it would seem they become at risk of losing touch with the
operator/architecture/user concerns because the operator community voice is
never heard in the voting booth.
Perhaps this bumps into how it used to be versus how it should be. I don't
know. Just struck me as incongruent with the platform of almost every
candidate - broadening representation while the current rules prohibit that
level of co-participation.
Thoughts?
*Adam Lawson*
AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/Mission
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
[3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee
--
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing
__________________________________________________________________________
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
