+1
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Matt Jarvis
wrote:
> +1
>
> On 4 March 2016 at 17:21, Robert Starmer wrote:
>
>> If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution,
>> then I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has
>> become a name implying you're t
+1
On 4 March 2016 at 17:21, Robert Starmer wrote:
> If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution,
> then I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has
> become a name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more
> useable, and more functional
If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, then
I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has become a
name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more useable, and
more functional for those who would use/deploy (and fix, update, enhance)
it.
So when a user manages a discussion across a group of operators, who's
input is then fed into the development teams who are developing the
software, and in such a way are supporting the development cycle, would
those downstream users (I'm not touching the code), not also be ATCs? The
discussions a
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:20:44PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
:On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
:[...]
:> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee
:> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the
:> User Committee and (imho) sho
On 2016-03-04 16:34:27 +0200 (+0200), Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
[...]
> By saying that someone who contributes to OpenStack - but doing so by
> not writing code are not entitled to any technical say in what
> directions OpenStack should pursue or how OpenStack should be governed,
> is IMHO a weir
Isn't this more nuanced than simply 'upstream' and 'downstream' ?
Characterising downstream as "people who help others using OpenStack, by
moderating Ops meetups, by filing bugs, by answering questions on Ask, by
contributing a blogpost, etc...". is an extremely broad church.
My assumption about t
On 03/04/16 14:20, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee
>> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the
>> User Committee and (imho) should vote for it.
>
On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee
> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the
> User Committee and (imho) should vote for it.
[...]
Right, this brings up the other important poi
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-03-03 10:41:45 -0800 (-0800), Stefano Maffulli wrote:
[...]
I suggest not to create a separate category, and reuse ATC. Active
Technical Contributor always meant to include any contribution of
technical nature, including legal, operations, documentation, user
storie
On 2016-03-03 10:41:45 -0800 (-0800), Stefano Maffulli wrote:
[...]
> Missing from this list are people who contribute translations. Those are
> valuable contributions too. In the past we couldn't get the list of
> translators because of limitations in the tool we used... but now we
> have them:
[.
On 03/02/2016 02:37 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> The Foundation User Committee [1] has received multiple requests to
> enable a formal recognition of your contributions to the OpenStack
> community. This email is our approach to formalize this recognition and
> make sure that we all feel and are part
stack.org>"
mailto:commun...@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops
contributions
How about just OPS : {$Verified_Count} Physical Nodes
=D
It would make visits to the Marketplace interesting…. Wandering around with a
badge with
What about 3 different groups, with every combination possible.
ACC / Active Community Contributor
I contribute with non-technical tasks (tasks not producing code).
Example : Meetups, Summits, Ask moderation, participating in a user
commitee, etc.
TOC / Technical Ops Contributor
I contribute to
How about just OPS : {$Verified_Count} Physical Nodes
=D
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Robert Starmer wrote:
> I setup an etherpad to try to capture this discussion:
>
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OperatorRecognition
>
> R
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Robert Starmer wrote:
>
>>
I setup an etherpad to try to capture this discussion:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OperatorRecognition
R
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Robert Starmer wrote:
> I agree with the list of contributions that should garner value, and I
> really like TOC, because some folks who meet the other
I agree with the list of contributions that should garner value, and I
really like TOC, because some folks who meet the other operators
requirements may not actually _run_ OpenStack, they may "operate" on top :)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I have to a
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:57:22PM +0100, Pierre Freund wrote:
:>
:> *This needs a catchy name.*
:> Yes, yes it does. Suggestions?
:>
:
:Some suggestions, but I'm not a native english speaker, it might sounds not
:natural.
As a native (american) english speaker all these suggestions sound
natura
+1 for TOC or AOC
On 3 March 2016 at 15:54, Edgar Magana wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I have to admit that I really like these two:
>
> TOC / Technical Ops Contributor
> IRO / I Run OpenStack
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Pierre Freund
> Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:57 AM
> To: Edgar Magana
> Cc: "op
Hello Folks,
I have to admit that I really like these two:
TOC / Technical Ops Contributor
IRO / I Run OpenStack
Edgar
From: Pierre Freund mailto:pierre.fre...@osones.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:57 AM
To: Edgar Magana mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>
Cc:
"openstack-operators@list
>
> *This needs a catchy name.*
> Yes, yes it does. Suggestions?
>
Some suggestions, but I'm not a native english speaker, it might sounds not
natural.
AOC / Active Ops Contributor
ACC / Active Community Contributor
TOC / Technical Ops Contributor
Proud Ops
POP / Proudly Operating in Production
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> We want to make this a reality by gathering a list of criteria that we as
> a community feel that shows someone has demonstrated technical
> contributions, using their skills as Ops. Our current ideas are as follows:
>
>- Moderating a ses
22 matches
Mail list logo
