On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Adam Lawson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I purposely didn't email the general mailing list since I didn't want to > cross-post, hard to have these discussions across verticals and choosing > one list = hearing one community - those subscribed to the developer > mailing list. > > So I'm not assuming anything, it seems some are suggesting that Operators > get into code review to quantify their role as an engaged Operator. Is that > a correct statement? Just want to make sure I'm hearing correctly. I try to > avoid absolutes but personally speaking for the record, I don't believe the > answer lies with asking Operators to become code reviewers on top of > everthing else they're doing in order for them to have a voice in the TC > elections. If code reviews are being suggested (again, assuming the > assumption is correct for the sake of making my point), technical > contribution extends far beyond uploading and reviewing code. This > alternate means to gain ATC status seems like a potential candidate for > those who want to review code but not for those who are day-to-day > operators engaging with the community. > > Specification review is a far cry from code review. Specification review is really about direction / impact. Operator imput on specifications can be extremely valuable (e.g. "This doesn't meet any of our needs, but it's close. Here are some suggestions to make it meet more needs/closer to real-world"). It is one of the ways operators can be involved and get ATC status. It may not be the only way that operators should be involved. --Morgan > Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are > meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input? > > Given this conversation involves the Operator community as well, I went > ahead and CC'd them to hopefully capture their specific thoughts/ideas on > the subject. > > Mahalo, > Adam > > > *Adam Lawson* > > AQORN, Inc. > 427 North Tatnall Street > Ste. 58461 > Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230 > Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101 > International: +1 302-387-4660 > Direct: +1 916-246-2072 > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Fainberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, May 1, 2015, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/2015 02:22 PM, Tim Bell wrote: >>> > >>> > The spec review process has made it much easier for operators to see >>> > what is being proposed and give input. >>> > >>> > Recognition is a different topic. It also comes into who would be the >>> > operator/user electorate ? ATC is simple to define where the equivalent >>> > operator/user definition is less clear. >>> >>> I think spec review participation is a great example of where it would >>> make sense to grant extra ATC status. If someone provides valuable spec >>> input, but hasn't made any commits that get ATC status, I'd vote to >>> approve their ATC status if proposed. >> >> >> This is exactly the case for David Chadwick (U of Kent) if anyone is >> looking for prior examples of someone who has contributed to the spec >> process but has not landed code and has received ATC for the contributions. >> >> This is a great way to confer ATC for spec participation. >> >> --Morgan >> >> >>> -- >>> Russell Bryant >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
