Agreed but not only for the TC. I also heard privately from some contributors 
that meetings times prevent them from fully engage with a project. This is 
something where we as the TC can lead by example.


On 4/10/17, 3:06 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <> wrote:

    I second this request. At least one person i talked to, pointed this
    as a primary reason for not standing for the TC election.
    On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Matt Riedemann <> wrote:
    > On 4/10/2017 1:18 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
    >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
    >>> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
    >>> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
    >>> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?
    >> I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
    >> attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
    >> that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
    >> I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
    >> for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
    >> time and energy to support that.
    >> Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
    >> challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
    >> do what's needed to do the job well.
    >>> If there was ONE thing, one
    >>> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
    >>> this election round and the next, what would it be ?
    >> Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
    >> matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
    >> are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
    >> difference. But since ONE is the request:
    >> My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
    >> been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
    >> late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
    >> consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
    >> variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
    >> a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
    >> into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
    >> proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
    >> to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.
    >> This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
    >> least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
    >> to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.
    >> I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
    >> aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
    >> resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
    >> Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
    >> weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
    >> was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
    >> to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
    >> wonder if that format was too heavyweight?
    >> I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
    >> think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
    >> very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
    >> lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
    >> do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
    >> something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
    >> operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
    >> sharing would accrete.
    >> What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
    >> aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
    >> working to shape the future of OpenStack.
    >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    >> Unsubscribe:
    > Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to all 
    > members, or those running for a seat.
    > Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate 
    > in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
    > The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
    > I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
    > adopted an alternating meeting schedule?
    > For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's already
    > hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within projects and
    > especially across the community, in large part because of the timezone
    > barrier.
    > How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at least
    > every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world can
    > attend?
    > --
    > Thanks,
    > Matt
    > __________________________________________________________________________
    > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    > Unsubscribe:
    Davanum Srinivas ::
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to