I purposely didn't email the general mailing list since I didn't want to cross-post, hard to have these discussions across verticals and choosing one list = hearing one community - those subscribed to the developer mailing list.
So I'm not assuming anything, it seems some are suggesting that Operators get into code review to quantify their role as an engaged Operator. Is that a correct statement? Just want to make sure I'm hearing correctly. I try to avoid absolutes but personally speaking for the record, I don't believe the answer lies with asking Operators to become code reviewers on top of everthing else they're doing in order for them to have a voice in the TC elections. If code reviews are being suggested (again, assuming the assumption is correct for the sake of making my point), technical contribution extends far beyond uploading and reviewing code. This alternate means to gain ATC status seems like a potential candidate for those who want to review code but not for those who are day-to-day operators engaging with the community. Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input? Given this conversation involves the Operator community as well, I went ahead and CC'd them to hopefully capture their specific thoughts/ideas on the subject. Mahalo, Adam *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 On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote: >> > >> > The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see >> > what is being proposed and give input. >> > >> > Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be the >> > operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the equivalent >> > operator/user definition is less clear. >> >> I think spec review participation is a great example of where it would >> make sense to grant extra ATC status. If someone provides valuable spec >> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to >> approve their ATC status if proposed. > > > This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is > looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec > process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the contributions. > > This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation. > > --Morgan > > >> -- >> Russell Bryant >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators