Hi I'd like to offer my self as a candidate for the Technical Committee election.
About me I've been working on OpenStack for over two years now and have particularly focused my contributions on Nova and Oslo, but have also contributed in smaller ways to most other OpenStack projects. For the past year or more, I've been a member of the Technical Committee as Oslo PTL. I'm a proud Red Hatter and am also a member of the OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors. The Past Year I'm very happy with some of the progress and decisions the TC made over the past year. We welcomed Heat, Ceilometer, Trove, Savannah, Marconi into the OpenStack family either as integrated or incubating projects. The TC carefully considered each of these applications and my own rule of thumb was "does it have a healthy contributor community and is it a sensible growth of OpenStack's scope?". I love to see this sustainable growth in our project and community. In a similar vein, I'm really excited that TripleO has been added as an official OpenStack program. One of OpenStack's biggest criticisms has always been that it is difficult to deploy and manage. TripleO is an awesome idea but, more importantly, is a way for all of us to work together to build tools and processes for deploying and managing our software. In terms of more meta changes, I'm really happy that the TC has moved to a model where all seats are directly elected. This removed the concern that adding new projects would make the TC unmanageably large so that can no longer be used as an excuse to not add new projects. I also hope that this election model will result in more members who are interested in cross-project concerns. I'm proud of the work we did with the foundation board to adopt the term "integrated" as a way to separate the TC controlled "accepted into the OpenStack integrated release process" status from the board controlled "allowed to use associate OpenStack trademark" status. This is really important because it allows the TC to evaluate new project applications on a purely technical basis. I think it's really positive that we adopted the concept of "programs" as a recognition that not all important efforts and contributor groups are focused around a particular server project. Our community has a very diverse set of contributor groups and all of them play an important role. Finally, I'm happy to see us starting to use gerrit to track TC decisions in a way that is easily referenceable. Looking back over the last year of TC decisions would have been a lot easier with 'git log'! See https://review.openstack.org/50066 :) Next Year I want to see the TC continue to be welcoming to new projects and contributor groups. That said, I'd like us to continue improve how we deliberate over these applications. For example, maybe we assign specific TC members with aspects of the project to report back on - e.g. architecture, development process, contributor diversity, test coverage, etc. I'm also really eager to encourage any experiments with evolving our project governance model. I think we're seeing several projects with multiple leaders who are essentially peers and having to choose a PTL can be an artificial elevation of one person over their peers. I stepped down as Oslo PTL because I want Oslo to have a bunch of strong leaders, rather than be dominated by one person. Finally, I'd like the TC to be used more often as a forum for people to develop their ideas about the project. We should view the TC as a group of project leaders who are happy, as a group, to help people out with advice and mentorship. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
