Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] Open letter/request to TC candidates (and existing elected officials)
On 2018-09-12 17:50:30 -0600 (-0600), Matt Riedemann wrote: [...] > Again, I'm not saying TC members should be doing all of the work > themselves. That's not realistic, especially when critical parts > of any major effort are going to involve developers from projects > on which none of the TC members are active contributors (e.g. > nova). I want to see TC members herd cats, for lack of a better > analogy, and help out technically (with code) where possible. I can respect that. I think that OpenStack made a mistake in naming its community management governance body the "technical" committee. I do agree that having TC members engage in activities with tangible outcomes is preferable, and that the needs of the users of its software should weigh heavily in prioritization decisions, but those are not the only problems our community faces nor is it as if there are no other responsibilities associated with being a TC member. > Given the repeated mention of how the "help wanted" list continues > to not draw in contributors, I think the recruiting role of the TC > should take a back seat to actually stepping in and helping work > on those items directly. For example, Sean McGinnis is taking an > active role in the operators guide and other related docs that > continue to be discussed at every face to face event since those > docs were dropped from openstack-manuals (in Pike). I completely agree that the help wanted list hasn't worked out well in practice. It was based on requests from the board of directors to provide some means of communicating to their business-focused constituency where resources would be most useful to the project. We've had a subsequent request to reorient it to be more like a set of job descriptions along with clearer business use cases explaining the benefit to them of contributing to these efforts. In my opinion it's very much the responsibility of the TC to find ways to accomplish these sorts of things as well. > I think it's fair to say that the people generally elected to the > TC are those most visible in the community (it's a popularity > contest) and those people are generally the most visible because > they have the luxury of working upstream the majority of their > time. As such, it's their duty to oversee and spend time working > on the hard cross-project technical deliverables that operators > and users are asking for, rather than think of an infinite number > of ways to try and draw *others* to help work on those gaps. But not everyone who is funded for full-time involvement with the community is necessarily "visible" in ways that make them electable. Higher-profile involvement in such activities over time is what gets them the visibility to be more easily elected to governance positions via "popularity contest" mechanics. > As I think it's the role of a PTL within a given project to have a > finger on the pulse of the technical priorities of that project > and manage the developers involved (of which the PTL certainly may > be one), it's the role of the TC to do the same across openstack > as a whole. If a PTL doesn't have the time or willingness to do > that within their project, they shouldn't be the PTL. The same > goes for TC members IMO. Completely agree, I think we might just disagree on where to strike the balance of purely technical priorities for the TC (as I personally think the TC is somewhat incorrectly named). -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] Open letter/request to TC candidates (and existing elected officials)
You're welcome! -- Kind regards, Melvin Hillsman mrhills...@gmail.com mobile: (832) 264-2646 On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 5:52 PM Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 9/12/2018 5:32 PM, Melvin Hillsman wrote: > > We basically spent the day focusing on two things specific to what you > > bring up and are in agreement with you regarding action not just talk > > around feedback and outreach. [1] > > We wiped the agenda clean, discussed our availability (set reasonable > > expectations), and revisited how we can be more diligent and successful > > around these two principles which target your first comment, "...get > > their RFE/bug list ranked from the operator community (because some of > > the requests are not exclusive to public cloud), and then put pressure > > on the TC to help project manage the delivery of the top issue..." > > > > I will not get into much detail because again this response is specific > > to a portion of your email so in keeping with feedback and outreach the > > UC is making it a point to be intentional. We have already got action > > items [2] which target the concern you raise. We have agreed to hold > > each other accountable and adjusted our meeting structure to facilitate > > being successful. > > > > Not that the UC (elected members) are the only ones who can do this but > > we believe it is our responsibility to; regardless of what anyone else > > does. The UC is also expected to enlist others and hopefully through our > > efforts others are encouraged participate and enlist others. > > > > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-stein-ptg > > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/UC-Election-Qualifications > > Awesome, thank you Melvin and others on the UC. > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] Open letter/request to TC candidates (and existing elected officials)
On 9/12/2018 5:32 PM, Melvin Hillsman wrote: We basically spent the day focusing on two things specific to what you bring up and are in agreement with you regarding action not just talk around feedback and outreach. [1] We wiped the agenda clean, discussed our availability (set reasonable expectations), and revisited how we can be more diligent and successful around these two principles which target your first comment, "...get their RFE/bug list ranked from the operator community (because some of the requests are not exclusive to public cloud), and then put pressure on the TC to help project manage the delivery of the top issue..." I will not get into much detail because again this response is specific to a portion of your email so in keeping with feedback and outreach the UC is making it a point to be intentional. We have already got action items [2] which target the concern you raise. We have agreed to hold each other accountable and adjusted our meeting structure to facilitate being successful. Not that the UC (elected members) are the only ones who can do this but we believe it is our responsibility to; regardless of what anyone else does. The UC is also expected to enlist others and hopefully through our efforts others are encouraged participate and enlist others. [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-stein-ptg [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/UC-Election-Qualifications Awesome, thank you Melvin and others on the UC. -- Thanks, Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] Open letter/request to TC candidates (and existing elected officials)
On 9/12/2018 5:13 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Sure, and I'm saying that instead I think the influence of TC members_can_ be more valuable in finding and helping additional people to do these things rather than doing it all themselves, and it's not just about the limited number of available hours in the day for one person versus many. The successes goal champions experience, the connections they make and the elevated reputation they gain throughout the community during the process of these efforts builds new leaders for us all. Again, I'm not saying TC members should be doing all of the work themselves. That's not realistic, especially when critical parts of any major effort are going to involve developers from projects on which none of the TC members are active contributors (e.g. nova). I want to see TC members herd cats, for lack of a better analogy, and help out technically (with code) where possible. Given the repeated mention of how the "help wanted" list continues to not draw in contributors, I think the recruiting role of the TC should take a back seat to actually stepping in and helping work on those items directly. For example, Sean McGinnis is taking an active role in the operators guide and other related docs that continue to be discussed at every face to face event since those docs were dropped from openstack-manuals (in Pike). I think it's fair to say that the people generally elected to the TC are those most visible in the community (it's a popularity contest) and those people are generally the most visible because they have the luxury of working upstream the majority of their time. As such, it's their duty to oversee and spend time working on the hard cross-project technical deliverables that operators and users are asking for, rather than think of an infinite number of ways to try and draw *others* to help work on those gaps. As I think it's the role of a PTL within a given project to have a finger on the pulse of the technical priorities of that project and manage the developers involved (of which the PTL certainly may be one), it's the role of the TC to do the same across openstack as a whole. If a PTL doesn't have the time or willingness to do that within their project, they shouldn't be the PTL. The same goes for TC members IMO. -- Thanks, Matt ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] Open letter/request to TC candidates (and existing elected officials)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:55 PM Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2018-09-12 09:47:27 -0600 (-0600), Matt Riedemann wrote: > [...] > > So I encourage all elected TC members to work directly with the > > various SIGs to figure out their top issue and then work on > > managing those deliverables across the community because the TC is > > particularly well suited to do so given the elected position. > [...] > > I almost agree with you. I think the OpenStack TC members should be > actively engaged in recruiting and enabling interested people in the > community to do those things, but I don't think such work should be > solely the domain of the TC and would hate to give the impression > that you must be on the TC to have such an impact. > -- > Jeremy Stanley > Jeremy, this is not to say that one must be on the TC to have such an impact, it is that TC has the duty more than anyone else to get this specific cross-project goal done. I would even argue it is not the job description of TC to enable/recruit, but to just do it. -- 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-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
