+1 On 4 March 2016 at 17:21, Robert Starmer <rob...@kumul.us> wrote:
> 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 > > -- 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
