On 09/02/2017 16:37, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-02-09 00:59:52 +0000 (+0000), UKASICK, ANDREW wrote: > [...] >> I'm the mysterious "AndyU" who was chatting with you about a year >> ago in IRC with questions about how to go about donating hosted >> cloud resources for use by the Infra team. It's nice to bump into >> you again! ;-) That idea is still stirring btw, but has been much >> slower moving than I'd hoped. > [...] > > Always appreciated, and happy to pick that back up if and when > you're ready. > >> I've been having a pretty lengthy conversation with jay Pipes >> regarding similar questions. You can catch up on that in the >> thread below this one. > > I've been following it closely, and tried not to duplicate > questions/comments as much as possible. > >> LCOO is unlike any other working groups that I'm familiar with in >> some significant ways. You zero'd in on one of those in your >> statements above about companies joining as opposed to >> individuals. In that regard, LCOO is similar to an entity like >> OSIC.org as opposed to a traditional working group. > [...] > > This is probably where some of the confusion comes in for me; I > expect it's just one of terminology/semantics. The OpenStack User > Committee has specifically tied "Active members and contributors to > functional teams and/or working groups" to its electorate in their > charter, and also defines working groups as "teams" (which to me > implies they're made up of individuals, not organizations): > > https://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html > > Maybe LCOO is something other than a "working group" in the formal > UC sense? Or maybe the organizations who participate in the LCOO > designate representatives (those LCOO "organization coordinators" > and "governance board" mentioned in your wiki article) who are the > actual working group as far as the UC is concerned? I'm just > concerned if, for example, all employees within AT&T suddenly become > part of the UC electorate by way of AT&T as an organization being an > active "member" of an official UC working group. The only way I can > really see this working is if the UC insists that its working groups > are made up of individuals and not whole organizations. > >> Jira provides Kanban boards that can serve as a kind of dashboard >> allowing us to visualize activity and current status of Community >> activity. But that activity is still happening in Launchpad, >> Gerrit, etc. > [...] > > Cool, so it sounds like StoryBoard may work out for you in the > long-run. It already has kanban and worklist support with optional > automation tied directly to defect/feature tracking and code review. > As the current effort to move our community from launchpad.net to > storyboard.openstack.org progresses over the next couple of > development cycles, I encourage you to check it out and start > thinking about whether its features address your needs (or consider > pitching in on further development there). > >> Automating the status updating is something I've begun to discuss >> within the PWG's "Story Tracker" team. We have the same challenge >> there. > [...] > > Our hope is that once we get further along with the current > migration blockers for StoryBoard, we'll implement an "epics" > concept in it which ties individual stories and their tasksets to > over-arching efforts where their progress can be tracked more > holistically. > >> BTW, Atlassian has always made their tools free for use by open >> source projects. Also, although they're commercial products they >> do provide the source code and allow users to modify it freely >> which makes them much more open-source-ish than most. > [...] > > <soapbox> > Yes, I saw you mention it in the other ML thread. "Free as in beer" > is a somewhat dirty concept in free software development circles, > and our community infrastructure similarly eschews gratis services > like GitHub in favor of libre alternatives (we provide read-only > mirrors there on request, but don't rely on it in any of our > automation and officially recommend git.openstack.org which runs > entirely on free software). > > As an author of free software myself I prefer when people use and > help improve OpenStack rather than supporting commercial/proprietary > solutions to accomplish the same tasks, and so think it hypocritical > to not extend the same courtesy to other free software communities > who are attempting to overcome similar hurdles in their respective > problem spaces. To quote Harry Tuttle, "We're all in it together." > </soapbox> > > I understand you'll probably end up using whatever tools you're > familiar/comfortable with and which help you accomplish your goals, > I just ask that you keep in mind that publicly recommending non-free > tools in the service of free software development sets an example. > OpenStack already has a slightly negative reputation as "not really > free" in the wider community... one which we're desperately trying > to overcome, bit by bit. >
I would also have a request - if these tools are going to be used can we make them world readable, with no requirement to log in to view content? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators