On 08/09/2016 06:17, Chris Dent wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >> To be honest, I think you're expressing in a negative way something >> that was thought in a positive way. The motivation to write the >> principles down is to help the community with the help from the >> community. No one is pushing anyone's beliefs on anyone. The idea to >> write these principles down came out of a retrospective and someone >> actually signed up for the work. > > I don't dispute that writing things down is a positive. It is a _huge_ > positive. What I'm disputing is the process with which it is happening.
Definitely - I am happy to see this put somewhere permanent. > The writing is starting from a detailed proposal which, as txx said in > his response to me above, presents itself as a document that is "meant > to document *existing* principles that we operate under but never > documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really > changing anything". > > That is, it thinks of iself as an existing truth to be ratified. > > That would be great except that it is clear from the comments on the > review and comments we've seen on this list and elsewhere that the > truths are not universally held. If that's indeed the case, then we need > to make adjustments to the process and the document to be inclusive and > make greater progress on putting to bed some of the arguments we > continually have, but fail to resolve. This is my issue with the review. It states that these are the *current* rules we live by. While these may be the rules we currently aspire to, they are not what we live by, and this needs to be reflected. >> I do not think the process is trying to push few ppl beliefs on the >> community. Someone had to write something down first, right? Someone >> had to kick this off somehow, right? I hardly believe we could have >> collected a list of principles to reason about out of a mailing list >> thread. These list is just a starting point for us to add/remove stuff >> to it either on follow-up patches or the same one. > > As I said in my original posting, again above, and supported by ttx's > response, the current proposal and its mode of presentation > presuppose the principles. That starting point biases any future > discussions. That's problematic if the end goal are principles that > everyone actually understands and agrees. > >> As everything else we do in this community, this work is meant to >> evolve and progress but again, we have to start somewhere. With what's >> in that review, I believe it'll be easier for everyone to reason about >> the document and the expectations of it. > > I hope we can agree to disagree, cordially. We seem to want the same > positive things to happen, we are disagreeing on the process. I > merely wish there had been more public engagement, sooner, and a > greater sense of doubt and request for assistance in the document. I would second the need for sooner engagement - my missing it may be my own fault as I missed the Stewardship WG meeting this week due to travelling, but I think a bigger cross section, earlier, is important. When I look at the TC, there is a lot of people who have come from larger or horizontal projects. These projects get a different point of view to smaller projects. Only allowing these views after the draft is finished makes getting their point of view more difficult, as the document is more solid. > The truth, for me, is that I agree with most of the things in the > document. What is problematic for me is that I know a lot of people > who will not. Because of the ordering of the process and the > presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and > carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on. > This. The only reason I saw this review was I saw a tweet. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
