> -----Original Message----- > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:25 PM > To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group > > Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2016-06-22 13:15:03 +0000: > > Clint, > > > > In your original email, you proposed "So, with that, I'd like to propose > the creation of an Architecture Working Group. This group's charge would > not be design by committee, but a place for architects to share their > designs and gain support across projects to move forward with and ratify > architectural decisions." > > > > I like parts of this, and parts of this trouble me. But, I volunteered > to be part of this activity because I have a real problem that this group > could help me solve and I bet there are others who have this problem as > well. > > > > As you say, there are often problems, questions, and challenges of an > architectural nature, that have a scope larger than a single project. I > would like there to be a forum whose primary focus is to provide an avenue > where these can be discussed. I would like it to be a place less noisy > than "take it to the ML" and be a place where one could pose these > questions and potentially discuss solutions that other projects have > adopted. > > > > The part I'm uncomfortable is the implied decision making authority of > "ratifying architectural decisions". To ratify implies the ability to make > official, the ability to "approve and sanction formally" and I ask whence > came this power and authority? > > > > Who currently has this power and authority, and is that individual or > group delegating it to this working group? > > > > When I say ratify there, what I mean is that this group would have regular > members who work on the group. To ratify something, a majority of them > would at least agree that this was something worth the group's time, and > that the group should publish their architecture decisions publicly. The > membership, I think, should be voluntary, and the only requirement be > that members regularly participate in discussions and voting. > > Formality is a useful tool here, which is the reason I chose the word > 'ratify'. It asks that those who want to propose new ideas do so in an > efficient manner that doesn't make noise on the mailing list and force > everyone to come up with an opinion on the spot or forever lose the > idea. We get a log of proposals, objections, and reasoning, to go along > with our log of successes and failures in taking the proposals to reality. > > But the only power this group wields is over itself. Of course, > collaboration with the project teams is _critical_ for the success > of these proposals. And if we succeed in improving some projects, but > others resist, then it's up to those projects that have been improved > to support us pushing forward or not. > > This isn't all that different than the way Oslo specs and OpenStack > specs work now. It's just that we'll have a group that organizes the > efforts and keeps pressure on them. >
[amrith] May I then request that you use a word other than 'ratify'. You will understand my root of my concern in the link below. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ratify What you are describing is more like "bless" or "endorse" and not "ratify" :) > > While this ML thread is very interesting, it is also beginning to > fragment and I would like to propose a spec in Gerrit with a draft charter > for this working group and a review there. > > > > You're spot on Amrith. I've been noodling on a mission statement and > was going to bring it up at next week's TC meeting, but we don't have to > wait for that. Let's draft a charter now. Any suggestions on where that > should be submitted? openstack-specs I suppose? Governance? > [amrith] I will help with that. I have no idea where it should be proposed but I do know that there's no TC meeting next week. I will be sure to bend several of the TC members ears about this in Ann Arbor though :) > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
