Davanum Srinivas wrote:
One concrete suggestion based on my experience working with Kris
Lindgren on Heartbeat patch:
http://markmail.org/message/gifrt5f3mslco24j
I could have added a "Co-Tested-By" (or "Co-Operator" - get it? :) in
my commit message which would have signaled a concrete
contribution/feedback with specific folks in the operator community.
This could be done not just for code, could be for reviews or
documentation etc as well. WDYT?
+1 Kris is a great example, and I can think of other operators that
should be some sort of ATC (but may not contribute code to get this).
IMHO any operator running openstack (let's say at least at 50+ compute
nodes) and operating it should get full access to the summit, because
their words of advice/experience are just as useful as technical
contributors...
thanks,
dims
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Adam Lawson<alaw...@aqorn.com> wrote:
I think it's easy to quantify a code contributor since we have systems that
monitor activity - who contributed, what they contributed and when. But we
don't have a system that monitors operator activity and honestly, that's the
question mark for which I really don't have any answers. That might be our
first hurdle - how define the difference between a causal user making
remarks on the mailing lists and someone who works with the technology and
engages. We'd have to quantify them differently somehow.
Maybe attending an operators meeting would qualify someone to vote?
On Apr 30, 2015 5:35 PM, "Stefano Maffulli"<stef...@openstack.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:26 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
I've seen the number of threads to discuss Ops topics increase in
openstack-dev and the influence of Ops - even just points of views
inherited from the feedback we've got - on reviews has gotten better
as well.
Fantastic, that has always been the intention.
If it's a matter of having more Ops voting for the TC, we do have a
process in place that we could likely improve. Other than that, I
believe Thierry and Doug have explained perfectly the issues related
to having these 2 groups merged from a *governance* perspective.
I noticed that this round of elections we had TC *candidates* that at
least I consider more operators than strictly 'dev'. That, to me, is a
huge sign of the progress we've made to integrate the two categories.
To me the real big question is: how are candidates from the operators
side going to get a better chance of being elected next time?
And what's the role of the User Committee in all this?
/stef
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
