Gordon, You also asked for specific examples of things that candidates would like the TC to address in the coming year and I missed that.
Over the past several months there have been several independent threads that have called into question the 'leadership' that the TC has brought. There have been voices on both sides of this; the voices that say the TC doesn't do enough, and (when the TC does) voices that say the TC does too much. This is clearly a contentious area, but one that needs some attention. I am therefore heartened that the TC did take the positive step of trying to gets its membership to attend a training session (and I was lucky to be able to attend that as well) and try and understand how the TC should lead. The model of leadership (Stewardship/Servant Leadership) is one that is well suited to the particular situation that the TC finds itself in. So item #1 on the list of things that I'd like the TC to take up as a priority in the next year is to further understand this model of leadership and make specific changes to the way(s) in which it does things to better serve the community; that is the very essence of Stewardship. I'll also put in a shameless plug for a session[1] at Barcelona that I'll be moderating; Monty, Thierry, Colette Alexander and Doug Hellmann will be the panelists and we will be talking about this. The second thing that I would like the TC to actively advance is something that Doug Hellmann proposed recently, the notion of project wide series goals. I believe that it is one aspect of making OpenStack more cohesive, and better and easier for deployers and end users. Usability by deployers and end users has been a frequent complaint about OpenStack and I think this initiative will go a long way to improving that. The discussions around the idea (that I expected would be relatively non-controversial) regarding python is a microcosm of the kind(s) of challenges that come with leading a diverse community and I think improvements on the leadership model (above) will help drive these common and broad based improvements across OpenStack, things that are sorely needed if we don't want OpenStack to fragment into a number of disjointed projects. As I was reading news on my RSS Feed yesterday, I happened upon a question "Do I need to install a installation of a sump pump?" I kid you not. When I clicked on the link, the question appeared to have been deleted. But there was a fleeting moment when I felt that I had missed the announcement of a new OpenStack project "sump pump". The big tent is a great thing, it did much of what it was intended to do but I'm not sure that the end result was completely predicted. I have some reservations about the end result of the Big Tent from the perspective of end-users and deployers. Which brings me to the third thing, I believe that the TC must lead the discussion of "What is OpenStack" and I realize that there are those who believe that it is a single 'product' and those that feel that it is a loose federation of projects. In the conversation I have heard much of what OpenStack "never was" from people who have been associated with OpenStack from the time when it was 3 lines of code or during the first meetings that discussed it. Well, this is now six or more years later, and it is possible that the time has come for OpenStack to change. In the department of things that I'd like the TC to do proactively, I see "big things", things which set vision, things that set the course, things that set the overall direction of OpenStack. Sorry for missing this part of the question the first time around, and thanks for asking this question. I hope that in future election cycles we can have this conversation in a more robust way, and potentially not in a format that is squeezed for time. Thanks, -amrith [1] https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/15243/stewardship-bringing-more-leadership-and-vision-to-openstack > -----Original Message----- > From: Amrith Kumar [mailto:amr...@tesora.com] > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:33 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] open question to the candidates > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gordon chung [mailto:g...@live.ca] > > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:31 AM > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: [openstack-dev] [tc] open question to the candidates > > > > hi, > > > > as there are many candidates this TC election, i figured i'd ask a > > question to better understand the candidates from the usual sales pitch > > in self-nominations. hopefully, this will give some insights into the > > candidates for those who haven't voted yet. obviously, the following is > > completely optional. :) > > > > i initially asked this to John Dickinson[1] in his self-nomination. i'd > > like to open this up to everyone. the (re-worded) question is: > > > > the TC has historically been a reactive council that lets others ask for > > change and acts as the final approver. do you believe the TC should be a > > proactive committee that initiates change and if yes, to what scope? > > more generally, what are some specific issues you'd like the TC address > > in the coming year? > > [amrith] Gordon, great question. Short answer is that I believe that the > TC should be proactive. All the members in the TC are themselves active > contributors to different parts of OpenStack and there is a reasonable > expectation that they are remaining informed about the things that are > going on in all projects, are aware of what deployers and users are trying > to do with OpenStack and the problems they are facing. > > I believe that this gives them the ideal position to not only react to > issues that come up, but also in cases take proactive steps to improve > things. But, in keeping with the openness of OpenStack, I believe that any > 'proactive' action should be discussed in the open and decided only after > this open participatory process. > > In the future it may be a good idea to have an IRC meeting where all > candidates attend and members of the community get to participate in a > moderated discussion. This may mean that the timeline (closing deadline, > polling) may need to be altered but I think an opportunity for all > candidates to discuss these kinds of things would be valuable. > > Thanks! > > > > > [1] > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016- > > September/104821.html > > > > thanks, > > -- > > gord > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 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
