On 05/04/2015 10:46 AM, Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote: > On 05/04/15 17:07, Anita Kuno wrote: >> I'd like to go back to the beginning to clarify something. >> >> On 04/29/2015 02:34 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: >>> So I started replying to Doug's email in a different thread but >>> didn't want >>> to hi-jack that so I figured I'd present my question as a more general >>> question about how voting is handled for the TC. >>> >>> Anyway, I find it curious that the TC is elected by those within the >>> developer community but TC candidates talk about representing the >>> operator >>> community >> In my statements I talked about acknowledging the operator community not >> representing them. When I speak, I represent myself and my best >> understanding of a certain situation, if others find value in the >> position I hold, they will let me know. >> >> In my view of what comprises OpenStack, the TC is one point of a >> triangle and the operators are an entirely different point. Trying to >> get two points of a triangle to be the same thing compromises the >> integrity of the structure. Each needs to play its part, not try to be >> something it is not. > A three point triangle. I like the idea! Anita I assume that you are > talking about the TC[3], the board [1] and the user committee [2].
No that wasn't what I meant. You seem to be making a point so I won't detract from your point, except to clarify that was not my meaning. Thanks, Anita. > > I honestly do not see this at the moment as an equally weighted triangle. > Should they be? Perhaps not, maybe yes. > > It could be that my view of things is skew, but here it is. > > The way to get something into OpenStack is through code. > Who submits the code? Developers. > Who approves code? Reviewers and core > On top of that you have the PTL > Above the PTL - you have the TC. They decide what is added into > OpenStack and (are supposed) drive overall direction. > > These are the people that have actionable influence into what goes into > the products. > > AFAIK neither the Foundation - nor the User committee have any > actionable influence into what goes into the products, what items are > prioritized and what is dropped. > > If each of the three point of the triangle had proper (actionable) > influence and (actionable) say in what goes on and happens within the > OpenStack then that would be ideal. Does the representation have to be > equal? I don't think so. But it should be there somehow. > > One of the points of the User Committee mission is: > "Consolidate user requirements and present these to the management board > and technical committee" > > There is no mention that I could find on any of the other missions[3][1] > that says that the TC or the board have to do anything with user > requirements presented to them. > > I do not know if this has ever been addressed before, but it should be > defined. A process with where the TC and collects requirements from the > User Committee or Board and with a defined process this trickles down > into the teams and projects. > > My 0.02 Shekels. > >> There have been many helpful comments on how those operators who wish to >> contribute to reviews, patches and specs as well as receive ATC status >> may do so, for those operators who wish to be acknowledged as >> contributors as well as being operators. >> >> Operators have a very useful, very valuable, very necessary perspective >> that is not a developer's perspective that needs to be heard and >> communicated. >> >> Thierry has made the suggestion that a strong User Committee >> representing the voice of the operator would be a good direction here. I >> support this suggestion. Tim Bell is working on an etherpad here: >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-user-committee >> >> Thank you Adam, >> Anita. >> >> >>> who are not allowed to vote. Operators meaning Admins, >>> Architects, etc. It sounds like this is something most TC candidates >>> want >>> which most would agree is a good thing. At least I think so. ; ) >>> >>> Is it be feasible to start allowing the operator community to also cast >>> votes for TC candidates? Is the TC *only* addressing technical concerns >>> that are relevant to the development community? Since the TC >>> candidates are >>> embracing the idea of representing more than just the developer >>> community, >>> it would /seem/ the voters electing the TC members should include the >>> communities being represented. If the TC only addresses developer >>> concerns, >>> it would seem they become at risk of losing touch with the >>> operator/architecture/user concerns because the operator community >>> voice is >>> never heard in the voting booth. >>> >>> Perhaps this bumps into how it used to be versus how it should be. I >>> don't >>> know. Just struck me as incongruent with the platform of almost every >>> candidate - broadening representation while the current rules >>> prohibit that >>> level of co-participation. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> *Adam Lawson* >>> >>> AQORN, Inc. >>> 427 North Tatnall Street >>> Ste. 58461 >>> Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 >>> Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 >>> International: +1 302-387-4660 >>> Direct: +1 916-246-2072 >>> >>> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/Mission > [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee > [3] > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee __________________________________________________________________________ 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
