On 08/08/2014 12:12 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the >> contributors' activities > > This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go > uncorrected: we (the OpenStack project as a whole) have a lot of control > over contributors to OpenStack. There is a Technical Committee and a > Board of Directors, corporate members and sponsors... all of these can > do a lot to make things happen. For example, the Platinum members of the > Foundation are required at the moment to have at least 'two full time > equivalents' and I don't see why the board couldn't change that > requirement, make it more specific. >
Even if this were true (I don't know if it is or not), I have a hard time imagining that any such attempt would be effective enough to solve the current problems. I think that OSS software wins in places it does mostly because it *does not* get managed like a corporate software project. Trying to fit any classical PM methodology on top of a (very active mind you) OSS project will likely fail IMHO, due to not only lack of control over contributors time, but widely different incentives of participating parties. N. > OpenStack is not an amateurish project done by volunteers in their free > time. We have lots of leverage we can apply to get things done. > > /stef > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev