If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, then I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has become a name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more useable, and more functional for those who would use/deploy (and fix, update, enhance) it. And somehow that's been connected to touching the codebase directly. This implies that an architectural discussion that changes OpenStack, but doesn't initiate a code change is not an ATC worthy event.
So let's fix this, and if a proposal is needed how about: Active Technical Contributions are those that improve OpenStack either directly by impacting the code base, or indirectly by making OpenStack useable. Robert On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx <j...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
