confirmed On 10/10/2014 01:22 AM, John Griffith wrote: > I'd like to announce my candidacy for the OpenStack Technical Committee > Fall 2014 elections. > > I've been contributing to OpenStack for almost three years now (this months > my anniversary) and up until this election cycle have served as PTL for the > Cinder Project. Over the years I've had the opportunity to be on the TC > both as a result of PTL (back when PTL's were reserved seats) as well as by > election. Last spring however I chose not to run for a seat, for a number > of reasons. For one I didn't feel as though I had the bandwidth to really > dedicate as much as I should but more importantly I didn't necessarily feel > that what I was doing was really that worthwhile. > > Since then there's been a number of ideas proposed about changing some of > our models including the role of the TC. I really believe that this is > something that we need to do and am excited about the potential > opportunity. I think there's a lot that needs to be done here, I also > think it's going to be a learning experience and something that's needed is > an open mind. > > After the Juno cycle I decided not to seek another term as PTL partly > because I didn't feel that I would be able to effectively fulfill the role > of PTL and serve as a member of the TC. So I decided that for me, I'd like > the opportunity (if elected) to focus on contributing more broadly to > OpenStack with a focus on service on the Technical Committee. > > Answers to the candidacy questions are below. > > Thanks, > John > > > > Topic: OpenStack Mission > How do you feel the technical community is doing in meeting the OpenStack > Mission? > > Just as a refresh: "To produce the ubiquitous OpenSource Cloud Computing > platform that will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless > of size, by being simple to implement and massively scalable." > > So I always find this one a bit challenging to digest to be honest. I > think the "ubiquitous" part is coming along and is becoming a reality and I > also think that there's a decent balance between public and private clouds > and that the relative term "size" could be interpreted as something that's > being addressed fairly well thus far. > > Those are the good.... now for the not so good; "simple to implement"; I > don't think deployment is quite as bad as it's made out to be at times, > but it certainly leaves a bit to be desired. One thing that's always > bothered me here is that it's always been "left to the distros" to provide > their custom deployment tools and we've never been able to even provide a > common deployment foundation as a community. I really think that's too > bad, you can build the greatest software project there is, but if people > can't comprehend all the pieces let alone install and configure it fairly > easily it's really not living up to it's potential. > > From the perspective of the TC, I'm really not sure what role the TC is > playing in the overall mission to be honest. In my opinion the TC has > really become mostly a committee relegated to voting on project incubation > and proposals for things like project mission statements. It's really not > very technical in my opinion and it's also not overly effective either. > > In my opinion the TC needs to undergo some changes, it would be great as > others mentioned to move away from just voting on incubation motions and > mission statements or gap analysis efforts and actually focus more on > technical decisions that impact OpenStack as a whole. For example I think > it would be great for the TC to take a more active role in really having a > deep understanding of how all of the various OpenStack projects are > actually coming together, what they're doing that works, what they're doing > that's not and perhaps provide some guidance and input as well as technical > leadership and direction. I'm certainly not saying they should be an all > powerful oversight group, but I do think the focus as it stands currently > is wrong. > > > Topic: Technical Committee Mission > How do you feel the technical committee is doing in meeting the technical > committee mission? > (Reading from the Mission Statement here: [2]) > > I'm not sure that given the current state of OpenStack and the number of > projects and proposed projects the TC can be faulted for anything here. > The fact is that it's become a full time job to just try and keep up to > date on all the constantly changing projects in the ecosystem, not to > mention all the newly proposed projects. I do think that it would be > helpful if the TC was able to be adjusted and tweaked a bit such that it > had a more active engagement in technical direction of the project; say for > example driving things like making installation more of a community effort, > providing HA options that really work and most of all pushing every project > in OpenStack to be responsible for making the upgrade process better. I > also think that the TC needs to make some really hard decisions about > things; like projects that have been started, approved for incubation but > maybe aren't really turning out as was hoped. In my opinion there are a > number of projects like Neutron, TripleO and some others that I think we > really need to figure out a way to get them to a point where they can > graduate and be solid for use or revisit what their current status is. It > just doesn't seem right to let the process go on for years in some cases. > > I think that there are a number of folks on the TC currently that are in > fact driving some of these initiatives pretty well, but I don't see that > it's being driven from their roles on the TC but instead it's mostly just a > result of a lot of hard work and dedication on their part and the fact that > they've stepped up and proven themselves as leaders. > > Topic: Contributor Motivation > How would you characterize the various facets of contributor motivation? > > I believe this question is asking "what I think is the motivation for the > people actually committing to OpenStack" so that's how I'll address it. > It's interesting, there's most certainly a number of companies with what > might be considered "armies" of folks working and contributing. The > important part however when asking about motivation is what's motivating > the contributors themselves; of course I think many of us our motivated by > our employers and a pay check and there's no doubt that some of that > influences our day to day decision making. That being said, at the end of > the day most people I talk to just love working as a part of the community > and having the opportunity to be an Open Source Professional. Regardless > of how they end up there, it seems to me that most of the folks I work with > regularly are motivated by OpenStack itself and the opportunity to be a > part of something "big". > > > Topic: Rate of Growth > There is no argument the OpenStack technical community has a substantial > rate of growth. What are some of the consequences of this rate? > > There is indeed no arguing that the growth has been phenomenal. There's > also no arguing that there are consequences. My statements earlier about > the current role and function of the TC (more precisely my criticism) is a > direct result of that phenomenal growth. The model that we started with > just flat out does not scale to the level we've grown to. > > I think that things start to break down, starting with effectiveness of our > current governance model; but worse I think we discourage the "casual" > contributor. Personally when I first contributed to OpenStack three years > ago it was very discouraging for me when a patch update I submitted sat > idle for two whole days without somebody reviewing it. Currently two days > would be considered by most a rapid turn around. The point is there are > people with good ideas and good contributions that get lost in the shuffle, > and they don't come back. > > Topic: New Contributor Experience > How would you characterize the experience new contributors have currently? > > I sort of touched on this in the previous question, but there's certainly > more I think that can be added here. I think the experience for most new > contributors just plane sucks! What's worse is I've taken part in > discussions where this topic was discussed and some honestly state "I don't > care, that's not my problem". Over the years I've heard OpenStack called > things like "The Ego Stack" and have had quite a few people point out to me > that it's not a very welcoming environment. I think that many of us that > have been around for a bit sometimes take for granted that not only is > OpenStack a rather large and fairly complex collection of moving parts, but > we also have some very specific ways of doing things. We also tend to be > pretty hard on reviews sometimes (not saying that's good or bad, just > saying sometimes when I read through review comments I kinda feel bad for > people on the other end). > > I think we'd all do well to take on a bit more of a mentorship role. One > other thing that often comes up on this topic is the CLA, there's a lot of > buzz about it on the ML and in some peoples blog posts. I should probably > share my opinion here as it seems relevant; I've never understood why it > was such a big deal, and I've never had anybody tell me that they wouldn't > contribute to Cinder because of it or that it caused them any undue > burden. I'm certainly not saying those sorts of claims are not real or > justified, I'm just saying that if you're looking for a TC candidate to > fight the CLA fight, I'm most certainly going to disappoint you on that. I > really don't understand why it's such a hot item for some and I'd rather > just come out and be up front about it than ignore it. > > > Topic: Communication > How would you describe our current state of communication in the OpenStack > community? > > So the good thing here is I think we communicate well considering the > challenge we have. I think that most people are currently very open via > public discussions on IRC and raising issues and concerns on the mailing > list. The only problem is that it's become increasingly difficult to > actually keep up. So in terms of the community being open and > communicating, I think we're doing great. In terms of the volume of > communication and the effort required to keep up to date, it's a bit > overwhelming. You certainly need to focus on certain areas/items that are > most interesting or applicable to yourself in my opinion. > > > Topic: Relationship with the Foundation Board > The technical committee interacts with the foundation board on several > different fronts. How would you describe these interactions? > > Hmmm.... well, I'm really not sure. While I was on the TC in the past > there really hadn't been much interaction or communication between the > Board and the TC, and one of the few experiences that I did have frankly > was less than what I would call enjoyable or productive. So I don't really > have much insight here, and the experiences that I have had (which are very > very limited) were not good experiences. > > That being said, I believe there have been efforts over the last few months > to improve this and increase the interaction and communication in a > productive way, which I think is great and much needed. > > [2]: > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
