Anne Gentle wrote: > [...] > What are some of the problems with each layer? > > 1. weekly meeting: time zones, global reach, size of cross-project > concerns due to multiple projects being affected, another meeting for > PTLs to attend and pay attention to
A lot of PTLs (or liaisons/lieutenants) skip the meeting, or will only attend when they have something to ask. Their time is precious and most of the time the meeting is not relevant for them, so why bother ? You have a few usual suspects attending all of them, but those people are cross-project-aware already so those are not the people that would benefit the most from the meeting. This partial attendance makes the meeting completely useless as a way to disseminate information. It makes the meeting mostly useless as a way to get general approval on cross-project specs. The meeting still is very useful IMHO to have more direct discussions on hot topics. So a ML discussion is flagged for direct discussion on IRC and we have a time slot already booked for that. > 2. specs: don't seem to get much attention unless they're brought up at > weekly meeting, finding owners for the work needing to be done in a spec > is difficult since each project team has its own priorities Right, it's difficult to get them reviewed, and getting consensus and TC rubberstamp on them is also a bit of a thankless job. Basically you're trying to make sure everyone is OK with what you propose and most people ignore you (and then would be unhappy when they are impacted by the implementation a month later). I don't think that system works well and I'd prefer we change it. > 3. direct communications: decisions from these comms are difficult to > then communicate more widely, it's difficult to get time with busy PTLs > 4. Summits: only happens twice a year, decisions made then need to be > widely communicated > > I'm sure there are more details and problems I'm missing -- feel free to > fill in as needed. > > Lastly, what suggestions do you have for solving problems with any of > these layers? I'm starting to think we need to overhaul the whole concept of cross-project initiatives. The current system where an individual drives a specific spec and goes through all the hoops to expose it to the rest of the community is not really working. The current model doesn't support big overall development cycle goals either, since there is no team to implement those. Just brainstorming out loud, maybe we need to have a base team of people committed to drive such initiatives to completion, a team that individuals could leverage when they have a cross-project idea, a team that could define a few cycle goals and actively push them during the cycle. Maybe cross-project initiatives are too important to be left to the energy of an individual and rely on random weekly meetings to make progress. They might need a clear team to own them. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
