> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > Chris Dent wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Carol Barrett <carol.l.barr...@intel.com> >>> wrote: >>> So, it sounds like you've just described the job of the TC. And they >>> have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of >>> derivative decisions that seem ... inconsistent over time. >> >> Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. I agree that OpenStack >> needs some architectural vision, direction, leadership, call it what >> you will. Every time I've voted for the _Technical_ Committee that >> leadership is what I've wanted my vote to be creating. > > The TC is a representative body which is elected to make top-down decisions > on OpenStack. However, as much as our community loves the idea of "technical > leadership" and "vision", they hate the top-down decisions that come with it > (especially when that top-down decision doesn't go their way). They prefer > bottom-up consensus. > > So I'd argue that you need both. You need the TC whenever a hard call has to > be made, but in order to minimize the number of those hard calls (and favor > consensus building) you also need working groups to build a bottom-up > reasonable way forward.
>>This reads very strange to me, as I'd expect a group of technical leaders to >>both make hard calls *and* to be able to build consensus on overall direction >>and vision. They're >>two sides of the same coin. What is it about our >>process that means the TC can't build consensus on direction, but can only >>impose its will? I expect you didn't mean it to >>sound that way, though. Is >>the workload too high on the bookkeeping to prevent the vision building? Are >>we too afraid of the implications of defining 'what is openstack?', >>and >>what it might mean to existing projects and the community? I'd think that in >>the long-run, it'd prevent seemingly unrelated topics from seeming to go >>sideways so >>often, and prevent a lot of these "hard calls". +1. Making decisions is an element of being a leader. As a community, I believe we need this role filled. >>But, I'm also on the fringe that is very ready to call the "big tent" a >>failed experiment in attempting to avoid hard calls, too. > >> It may be that an architecture working group can provide some >> guidance that people will find useful. Against the odds I think those >> of us in the API-WG have actually managed to have a positive >> influence. We've not shaken things down to the foundations from which >> a great a glorious future may be born -- a lot of compromises have >> been made and not everybody wants to play along -- but things are >> going in the right direction, for some people, in some projects. >> Maybe a similar thing can happen with architecture. > > That is my hope. I see the API WG and the Architecture WG as groups of > experts in specific domains preparing recommendations and long-term plans. > They don't have authority to force them onto projects. Ideally projects adopt > them because they see them as the right way to do things. > > And for the very few things that the TC deems necessary for OpenStack and > where bottom-up didn't get it in a specific project (if all else fails), the > TC can make a top-down request to a project to do things a certain way. The > project can them either comply or reject the TC oversight and become an > unofficial project. >>Don't get me wrong, I welcome this initiative. I find it mildly disconcerting >>that the folks that I thought we were electing to fill this role will instead >>be filled by others, but the vacuum does need to be filled, and I thank Clint >>for stepping up. +1. I appreciate Clint making this proposal. I think a cohesive, consistent architecture across OpenStack is crucial to our long term efficiency and sustaining a high rate of innovation. Thanks, Carol > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____ 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
