On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame.
However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been governing OpenStack in the past few releases. Very serious issues in the project have been largely ignored. Foremost in my mind, among them, is the lack of an upgradability path. I remember there being large discussion and agreement to address this at folsom, and further back. I have seen no meaningful effort made to address a functionality requirement that has been requested repeatedly and emphatically since as far back as austin. I can raise other issues that continue to plague usership, such as neutron failing to take over for nova-network now two releases after it's planned obsolescence. My concern, is that the TC comprised entirely of active developers ( most of whom are full time on the open source side of this project ), is trapped in something of an echo chamber. I have no real reason to suggest this is the case, beyond the obvious failure by the project to address concerns that have been paramount in the eyes of users for years now. But, the concern lingers. I fear that the TC is beholden entirely to the voice of the development community and largely ignorant of the concerns of others. Certainly, the incentives promote that. The problem of course, is that the TC is responsible for driving purogratives in development that reflect more than the development communities desires. -Matt On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:25:13AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/31/2014 08:29 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 10/30/2014 09:15 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: > >> I was thinking after reading all this; besides modifying the number of > >> required patches, perhaps we could try a blind election; candidate names > >> are removed so ballots have to be cast based on the merit of each > >> candidate's responses to the questions and/or ideas - which I think > >> effectively eliminates the possibility of partisan voting based name > >> recognition or based on the fact they are a well-known as PTL for a > >> specific project i.e. nothing to do with TC but their prominence within > >> the development hierarchy. > >> > >> Or something along those lines. If we aren't electing names, might as > >> well cast ballots that eliminates them form the equation. ; ) Might be > >> another 'when hell freezes over' suggestion but I thought I'd at least > >> throw it out there for discussion. > > > > I actually hope *nobody* votes purely on a candidacy email. I would > > hate to see someone get elected who was just able to write a really nice > > email and does not otherwise participate regularly in the development > > community. I find someone's reputation based on the results they > > produce from ongoing involvement in the project even more important. > > +1 > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
