On 29 April 2015 at 20:48, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > Stefano Maffulli wrote: >> I've long come to the conclusion that it is what it is: at the size >> we're at, we can't expect every voter to be fully informed about all the >> issues. >> >> Better titles and a sort of TL;DR first paragraph in blog posts are very >> helpful. But in order to write those, the author needs to have more >> training as a communicator and more time. It's just a hard problem. > > Devil is in the details. We moved from an in-meeting voting system to an > async in-Gerrit voting system, so most of the time the decision is > actually made between meetings, when critical mass of voters is reached. > Meeting summaries may or may not represent accurately the opinion of all > members. Do we need to go through the extra pain of approving meeting > minutes at the next meeting ? > > For the Juno/Kilo cycles we just had periodic reports when something > significant was achieved, posted as authored blogposts on the OpenStack > blog by a rotation of authors. I understand how that may not be regular > enough, and I think the next membership will have to revisit how we > communicate the work of the TC out.
Most organisations of this size have a secretary whose job is to communicate with various folk, both in and out of the org. Perhaps the TC should elect / ask for a volunteer on of its members to be the TC secretary and be responsible for providing some push (vs pull) insight into the current state of things. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
