Isn't this more nuanced than simply 'upstream' and 'downstream' ? Characterising downstream as "people who help others using OpenStack, by moderating Ops meetups, by filing bugs, by answering questions on Ask, by contributing a blogpost, etc...". is an extremely broad church.
My assumption about this whole thread was that the point of it was to try and recognise the operators in the middle of these two groups - who are contributing to technical direction through active participation in ops events, providing feedback and testing for features, contributing to the ops codebase through osops etc. etc. etc. On 4 March 2016 at 14:34, Maish Saidel-Keesing <mais...@maishsk.com> wrote: > > > On 03/04/16 14:20, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: > > [...] > >> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee > >> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the > >> User Committee and (imho) should vote for it. > > [...] > > > > Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The > > purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote > > for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's > > all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more > > important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a > > hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the > > upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved > > directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at > > least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting > > all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the > > User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream > > users). > I have been following this as a silent bystander for a while - and we > have come full circle. And again here we bring up an old issue. > > (And forgive me Jeremy that you were the one whose mail triggered my > response - this is not directed at you personally, or any specific > person - but the OpenStack Community as a whole) > > Should ops contributors be accepted as ATC's? > > I have been saying this for a while - and I will continue singing this > song for as long as I can - hopefully until someone listens. > > Operator contributions to OpenStack are no less important or no less > equal than that of anyone writing code or translating UI's or writing > documentation. > > By saying that someone who contributes to OpenStack - but doing so by > not writing code are not entitled to any technical say in what > directions OpenStack should pursue or how OpenStack should be governed, > is IMHO a weird (to put it nicely) perception of equality. > > > I worry that "ATC means I get into events for free" is conflating > > two completely incidental factors and causes focus on the wrong > > issues. Let's figure out how to get the community better involved in > > these events, but making everyone an "ATC" isn't really the solution > > to that problem. > So I see two options. > > 1. Ops Contributors are considered Active Technical Contributors - just > the same as anyone writing code - or fixing a spelling mistake in > documentation (and yes submitting a patch to correct a typo in a > document - does give you ATC status). Their contributions are just as > important to the success of the community as anyone else. > > or > > 2. Give Ops contributors a different status (whatever the name may be) - > and change the governance laws to allow these people with this status a > voting right in the Technical committee. They have as much right as any > other contributor to cast their opinion on how the TC should govern and > what direction it should choose. > > By alienating Operators (and yes it is harsh word - but that is the > feeling that many Operators - me included - have at the moment) from > having a say in - how OpenStack should run, what release cycles should > be - what the other side of the fence is experiencing each and every day > due to problems in OpenStack's past and possible potential trouble with > the future - reminds me of a time in the not so far back history where > not all men/women were equal. > > Where some were allowed to vote, and others not - they were told that > others could decide for them - because those others knew what was best. > > *Forgive the rant.* > > -- > Best Regards, > Maish Saidel-Keesing > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > -- DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
