Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream > hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests. Indeed, we should assume that everyone is wearing their upstream hat. And fix it if they don't, rather than preventively establish rules to prevent an hypothetical abuse from happening. Core team members are not elected and don't have terms. Deciding who is in a core team is under the PTL control. If at some point the PTL realizes there is abuse, he can move to fix it. If the PTL himself is part of that abuse, he should probably be voted off the island at the next election round. "Assume good faith. And have ways to fix it if you assumed wrong." -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
On 07/17/2013 12:44 PM, Avishay Traeger wrote: > Dan Smith wrote on 07/17/2013 09:40:02 PM: >>> The affiliation of core team members should not come into a decision >>> like this. >>> >>> It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream >>> hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests. >> >> Mark beat me to it, but.. Yeah, what he said. Core members aren't >> investments the likes of which get you voting shares and they >> shouldn't enforced as such, IMHO. > > I agree, and didn't mean to imply that there would be a conscientious > effort to move the project in a certain way, or that people would be > purposefully voting for the good of their employers. Of course, voting > should be based on what the individual believes would be best for the > project as a whole, for all its users. However, a person's view of the > project's direction is certainly influenced by the customers they meet, the > use cases they encounter, and so on. Those employed by the same company > generally will have similar views. This POV came up when we were talking about foundation board voting. I fundametally reject its premise. I do not share the views of others employed by HP. In fact, the ones we'd theoretically be the _most_ worried about (the mega-big companies such as the ones we both work for) are the ones who are the least likely to have such a situation happen, because there are eleventy billion different divisions in each company that do not talk to each other and have different opinions on what the best path forward is. On the other hand, the small startups tend to do 18 hour days around a ping-pong table with beer and have a higher tendency to share a world view... they also usually don't have the time in their schedules to let a massive number of their employees do enough work to be considered for core. > It's not because of "voting shares", or > because of people representing their employers' interests rather than the > project's. It's because those who come from similar backgrounds will tend > to have similar views of what is good for the project, and a diverse > population will tend to have a broader picture of the users' needs. I > think the current Cinder core members provide a nice balance of views and > backgrounds - people who understand the needs of public clouds as well as > private clouds, those who interact with customers who are coming from > certain deployment models such as Fibre Channel, those who deal with > customers that are iSCSI-only operations, those that want NAS appliances, > and those who want to go with server-based storage. > > I believe that diversity of ideas and backgrounds yields the best results, > and that's why I voted with -1. If I were representing my employer's > interests, I would go with +1, because HP has been pushing for more FC > support, which is good for IBM. But I personally have invested many many > hours in Cinder, and I want it to succeed everywhere. That's why I review > 5,000 LOC patches from IBM's competitors with as much care as I do when > reviewing my own code, and even fix bugs in their drivers. That's why I > listen to every feature request and vote as objectively as I can, even if > I've never encountered the use case for it myself. I want Cinder to > succeed for every user and for every vendor, and I think that leadership > with as wide a view as possible is important to that success. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, and I think the way that you are approaching the project is exactly the kind of mentality we want! I want as wide a set of viewpoints and backgrounds as possible. I simply do not believe that employer equates to world view - and that in general core teams should use their judgement as to whether the person being voted in behaves more like you, or more like someone who is actually tied to company world view. Monty > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
Dan Smith wrote on 07/17/2013 09:40:02 PM: > > The affiliation of core team members should not come into a decision > > like this. > > > > It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream > > hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests. > > Mark beat me to it, but.. Yeah, what he said. Core members aren't > investments the likes of which get you voting shares and they > shouldn't enforced as such, IMHO. I agree, and didn't mean to imply that there would be a conscientious effort to move the project in a certain way, or that people would be purposefully voting for the good of their employers. Of course, voting should be based on what the individual believes would be best for the project as a whole, for all its users. However, a person's view of the project's direction is certainly influenced by the customers they meet, the use cases they encounter, and so on. Those employed by the same company generally will have similar views. It's not because of "voting shares", or because of people representing their employers' interests rather than the project's. It's because those who come from similar backgrounds will tend to have similar views of what is good for the project, and a diverse population will tend to have a broader picture of the users' needs. I think the current Cinder core members provide a nice balance of views and backgrounds - people who understand the needs of public clouds as well as private clouds, those who interact with customers who are coming from certain deployment models such as Fibre Channel, those who deal with customers that are iSCSI-only operations, those that want NAS appliances, and those who want to go with server-based storage. I believe that diversity of ideas and backgrounds yields the best results, and that's why I voted with -1. If I were representing my employer's interests, I would go with +1, because HP has been pushing for more FC support, which is good for IBM. But I personally have invested many many hours in Cinder, and I want it to succeed everywhere. That's why I review 5,000 LOC patches from IBM's competitors with as much care as I do when reviewing my own code, and even fix bugs in their drivers. That's why I listen to every feature request and vote as objectively as I can, even if I've never encountered the use case for it myself. I want Cinder to succeed for every user and for every vendor, and I think that leadership with as wide a view as possible is important to that success. Thanks, Avishay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
> The affiliation of core team members should not come into a decision > like this. > > It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream > hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests. Mark beat me to it, but.. Yeah, what he said. Core members aren't investments the likes of which get you voting shares and they shouldn't enforced as such, IMHO. --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 21:19 +0300, Avishay Traeger wrote: > -1 > > I'm sorry to do that, and it really has nothing to do with Ollie or his > work (which I appreciate very much). The main reason is that right now > Cinder core has 8 members: > 1. Avishay Traeger (IBM) > 2. Duncan Thomas (HP) > 3. Eric Harney (RedHat) > 4. Huang Zhiteng (Intel) > 5. John Griffith (SolidFire) > 6. Josh Durgin (Inktank) > 7. Mike Perez (DreamHost) > 8. Walt Boring (HP) > > Adding another core team member from HP means that 1/3 of the core team is > from HP. I believe that we should strive to have the core team be as > diverse as possible, with as many companies as possible represented (big > and small alike). I think that's one of the keys to keeping a project > healthy and on the right track (nothing against HP - I would say the same > for IBM or any other company). The affiliation of core team members should not come into a decision like this. It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests. Cheers, Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
-1 I'm sorry to do that, and it really has nothing to do with Ollie or his work (which I appreciate very much). The main reason is that right now Cinder core has 8 members: 1. Avishay Traeger (IBM) 2. Duncan Thomas (HP) 3. Eric Harney (RedHat) 4. Huang Zhiteng (Intel) 5. John Griffith (SolidFire) 6. Josh Durgin (Inktank) 7. Mike Perez (DreamHost) 8. Walt Boring (HP) Adding another core team member from HP means that 1/3 of the core team is from HP. I believe that we should strive to have the core team be as diverse as possible, with as many companies as possible represented (big and small alike). I think that's one of the keys to keeping a project healthy and on the right track (nothing against HP - I would say the same for IBM or any other company). Further, we appointed two core members fairly recently (Walt and Eric), and I don't feel that we have a shortage at this time. Again, nothing personal against Ollie, Duncan, HP, or anyone else. Thanks, Avishay From: Duncan Thomas To: "Openstack (openst...@lists.launchpad.net) (openst...@lists.launchpad.net)" , OpenStack Development Mailing List , Date: 07/17/2013 06:18 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core Hi Everybody I'd like to propose Ollie Leahy for cinder core. He has been doing plenty of reviews and bug fixes, provided useful and tasteful negative reviews (something often of far higher value than a +1) and has joined in various design discussions. Thanks -- Duncan Thomas Cinder Core, HP Cloud Services ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core
Hi Everybody I'd like to propose Ollie Leahy for cinder core. He has been doing plenty of reviews and bug fixes, provided useful and tasteful negative reviews (something often of far higher value than a +1) and has joined in various design discussions. Thanks -- Duncan Thomas Cinder Core, HP Cloud Services ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
