On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2015-05-01 14:50:33 -0700: > > 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. > > No, that's not what is being proposed at all. > > I am trying to point out that there is already a way to gain > ATC status without having to commit anything to a git repository > (code or otherwise), and so coming up with a way to work within the > existing system may achieve the original goal of allowing some > operators to vote for TC candidates, without having to change our > voting rules. > > I want Operators to review *specs*, which aren't code but are *plans* > for code. Having feedback on those plans, either indicating that > they are good or are missing the mark, would be really valuable. > We happen to use the same tool for reviewing those specs as for > reviewing code, but they are written in plain text and the review > tool is a web page so it doesn't require you to install anything > or work with code in any way. > > Code review seems further outside of the wheelhouse of most operators, > so while I would welcome it, I don't really expect it and I don't > think it's necessary. > > Granting ATC status to folks who aren't committing to repositories > is up to the PTL of each project, and contributing to spec reviews > is an obvious way to demonstrate a level of engagement I would > expect (as a former PTL), project leads to be looking for. We have > a couple of examples of folks who have done this already, so I also > know that it can work for at least some people. > > I'm also interested in understanding more directly why you think > having an impact on the TC membership will have a direct effect on > any of the work of the projects. Can you comment more on that? > > > > > Is there any meetings planned in Vancouver where users/operators are > > meeting where we can add an agenda items to gather input? > Tom's thread on openstack-operators is where that happened. Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-ops-meetup Sched: https://libertydesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/design+summit/Ops > > There is an entire track of operator-led and focused discussions > (I believe this is the third summit where we have had an "ops > track"). It looks like [1] may be the original post where Tom > started gathering ideas for this summit, but I hope someone else > more directly involved corrects me if there is a better starting > point at this stage in the planning. > > Doug > > [1] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-March/006607.html > > > > > 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 > -- Anne Gentle [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
