Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2019-12-04 09:45:48 -0500 (-0500), Mohammed Naser wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 AM Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
I'm also wondering if the advisory board should not also include seats
for the infrastructure donors... Since we should definitely be making
sure Opendev goes in a direction that encourages them to continue
investing in (or increase) the resources that they give us.
I wanted to bring this up but indeed, I think that as an infrastructure
donor, there is a significant investment from our side and knowing
where and how that's going is important
Yep, you mentioned it at the PTG and I think it's a great idea. Not
only does it provide a means for technical representatives from our
resource donors to give more direct feedback and even debate topics
between one another, it also gives the OpenDev sysadmins a clearer
point of contact when they need to reach out to those same donors.
Combining with Thierry's idea, perhaps there are two advisory boards
for OpenDev, one for the projects participating in it and one for
the resource donors? Or would they be better combined into a single
advisory board?
For the sake of simplicity I'd suggest having a single
stakeholders/advisory board, especially if we don't expect those boards
to formally vote (one seat = one vote style) on motions. The main idea,
as you mentioned, is to have clear contact points and get their feedback
on priorities and direction.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
