confirmed
On 07/10/14 11:25 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> I'd like to announce my candidacy for re-election to the TC.
>
> tl;dr - Vote for me or vote for someone else you prefer
>
> I've been around the project for quite a while, having been on the phone
> calls where we were discussing the name OpenStack - although I'll admit
> I had absolutely zero decision making power there. The first decision in
> the project I took any active part in shaping was the decision to keep
> the code names nova and swift and not to rename each project
> openstack-compute and openstack-object-storage.
>
> My main technical focus within OpenStack is in Infra, where I am a
> former PTL and current core. I tend to focus energy on cross-project
> concerns over individual project concerns. I believe that a strong
> OpenStack comes from a high degree of coordination and standardization -
> but I think it's important to keep standardization in perspective as a
> tool to help us make a better product and not an goal in and of itself.
>
> As an Infra team member, I am a fairly large end-user of OpenStack.
> Infra runs across two public clouds and a private cloud run by the
> TripleO team. Although I sometimes express it in a non-productive and
> rage-filled way, I regularly experience first hand what our end users
> experience ... which is both awesome and not-awesome ... and I've been
> spending more and more of my effort on improving that experience.
>
> As may be clear from my big-tent blog post, I believe it's highly
> important to be inclusive in "who" we are, while at the same time
> collectively taking a higher amount of accountability for the quality of
> "what" we produce.
>
> Finally, there is a natural tug between exciting new features to make
> people's lives better and the quality of the existing features we have.
> We've been growing at a rather unprecedented pace over the last four
> years, so at the moment I think we need a double-down on quality and
> stability with less of a focus on adding features. As with everything
> else though, this is a balancing act and the relative importance changes
> continually.
>
> Balancing the competing needs such as the ones above is what I believe
> the main job of the TC is. We have process, we have policy, we have
> governance structure - but ultimately humans need to talk and make
> decisions, even if the decision is to do nothing. I think as the TC we
> need to own that responsibility and not shrink from it when it's hard or
> potentially unpopular.
>
> == The questions ==
>
> Topic: OpenStack Mission
> How do you feel the technical community is doing in meeting the
> OpenStack Mission?
>
> In case you haven't read it recently:
>
> "to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that
> will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, by
> being simple to implement and massively scalable."
>
> If there is anyone out there who feels we've nailed "simple to
> implement" I'd love to meet them. I think we've been focusing on all of
> the other parts - I'd like to see more attention placed on "simple to
> implement"
>
> Topic: Technical Committee Mission
> How do you feel the technical committee is doing in meeting the
> technical committee mission?
>
> In case you haven't read it recently:
>
> "The Technical Committee ("TC") is tasked with providing the technical
> leadership for OpenStack as a whole (all official programs, as defined
> below). It enforces OpenStack ideals (Openness, Transparency,
> Commonality, Integration, Quality...), decides on issues affecting
> multiple programs, forms an ultimate appeals board for technical
> decisions, and generally has oversight over all the OpenStack project."
>
> I think over the last year since we became all-elected, the TC has been
> doing a better and better job. Historically the TC has been a bit
> reluctant to own the words "technical leadership" Over the past cycle or
> two, the TC has consistently been stepping more up to the plate on this
> topic, and I think that trend needs to continue.
>
> Topic: Contributor Motivation
> How would you characterize the various facets of contributor motivation?
>
> I'm pretty sure the majority of our contributors are doing so as part of
> their jobs. I think this makes our dynamic a bit different than a
> "traditional" Open Source project.
>
> That said - I think we see a very strong set of people who are
> passionate about what we're doing evidenced by the number of people who
> have worked for multiple companies while working on OpenStack.
>
> I can't speak to everyone's motivation - but I can tell you what mine is.
>
> Cloud is taking over as the way we think about how IT works. It's not an
> if, it's a when. But even with that, Cloud is an idea more than a
> destination. When we started, there was one legitimate definition for
> "Cloud" and it was Amazon. Amazon is a closed-source company run by a
> ruthless dictator. I do not want to live in a world where I need his
> permission to use a computer.
>
> Over the last four years, we've made significant inroads in redefining
> what Cloud can be. Containers and bare-metal are now legitimate building
> blocks and I think it's becomming understood that you can use cloud to
> effectively run things other than scale-out ephemeral compute based
> patterns.
>
> That direction and that transformation are the things that must happen
> for the Internet to keep both open and operational. I think it's
> essential that people make them happen. I'm lucky enough to be in a
> position where I can contribute to that - so I hack on OpenStack.
>
> Topic: Rate of Growth
> There is no argument the OpenStack technical community has a substantial
> rate of growth. What are some of the consequences of this rate?
>
> There are people who are core reviewers who I do not know. That's awesome.
>
> Some of the consequences are that we have to continually reassess how
> we're doing things. I'm sure this drives people nuts - but we've
> reworked how we organize and govern ourselves several times as each
> previous system reaches a scaling point. The introduction of programs is
> an example of that - they were not needed in 2010, but in 2013 they
> solved a problem. It's possible that they, as an organizational
> structure have outlived their time, or it's possible that they still
> serve a purpose in helping us get our job done but need to be tweaked in
> scope. The big-tent-targetted-gate discussions point to fragility in our
> monolithic integration story - again caused by scale, and incidentally
> caused by us actually meeting and not shrinking away from the challenges
> of doing captive integration at scale.
>
> Topic: New Contributor Experience
> How would you characterize the experience new contributors have currently?
>
> OpenStack is optimized for high-throughput at the expense of individual
> patch latency. This means some of our processes may seem new or opaque
> to people depending on their background. However, given that the project
> has regularly doubled every six months for quite some time, I do not
> think solving this is a priority if it's at the expense of the
> productivity of the folks that breathe OpenStack 80 hours a week.
>
> For those who have not begun contributing to another Open Source project
> in a while, I recommend you do so. EVERY project of size has its own
> quirks. Ours are, while long, well documented and consistent.
>
> Topic: Communication
> How would you describe our current state of communication in the
> OpenStack community?
>
> Did you read this email all the way to here? If so, communication is
> going well. :)
>
> Inside of the tech community I think we're doing ok with communication.
> Piercing our bubble, on the other hand, needs work. Keeping up with what
> we're doing as an inside is hard enough, I cannot imagine trying to
> follow it as an outsider. Similarly, since we're optimized for
> intra-developer communication, getting a voice to operators and users is
> hard.
>
> Topic: Relationship with the Foundation Board
> The technical committee interacts with the foundation board on several
> different fronts. How would you describe these interactions?
>
> Abysmal, but getting better. We had a good TC/Board meeting in Atlanta
> and have another scheduled for Paris.
>
> I think the biggest issue we face there is figuring out how to disagree
> with each other productively. It's essential that both the TC and the
> Board get better at being direct and open with each other when we feel
> that the other body is maybe not stepping up to the plate. There is
> information we learned from the board as part of DefCore that probably
> would have been better if it had just been some direct statements - and
> which I think once Rob and TC reps started meeting directly started
> getting worked out much more effectively. Similarly, the TC just passed
> a resolution requesting that the Board consider the DCO to be our CLA.
> It's clearly the board's prerogative to do whatever - but it's our
> responsibility to let them know that we have an opinion.
>
> In short, we're learning how to work together being respectful of
> boundaries but still being honest about needs. It's a journey, and one I
> think is important that we take seriously.
>
> Monty
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> 
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
