On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:20:44PM +0000, 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).
At the risk of drifting off topic that concern "letting all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the User Committee (UC)" is largely why the UC hasn't expanded to include elected positions. As currently written bylaws define the UC as 3 appointed positions. ! appointed by TC one by the board and the third by thte other two (FYI I'm currently sitting in the TC apointed seat). The by laws further allow the UC to add seats elected by all foundation members. In Tokyo summit sessions where expantion was discussed the consensus was to encourage more volunteer participation but not to add more formal seats because there was no way to properly define the voting constituency. Personally I can see both sides of that argument, but the sense of the room was not to add elected positions untill we can better deifne the constituency (that discussion could be reopened but if you'd like to do so please start a new thread) Perhaps nailing down this definition for recognition can actually have broader implications and help to define who elects the UC. It would take a by-law change of course, but atleast we'd actually have a good proposal (which we currently don't). -Jon _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
