Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Sean McGinnis]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:12:49PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-04-23 16:56:28 -0500 (-0500), Sean McGinnis wrote:
> [...]
> > I think Howard had an excellent idea of the TC coming up with
> > themes for each cycle. I think that could be used to create a good
> > cadence or focus to make sure we are making progress in key areas.
> > 
> > It struck me that we came up with the long term vision, but there
> > really isn't too much attention paid to it. At least not in a
> > regular way that keeps some of these goals in mind.
> > 
> > We could use the idea of cycle themes to make sure we are
> > targetting key areas of that long term vision to help us move
> > towards bringing that vision to reality.
> 
> So (straw man!) we can make Rocky "the constellations cycle"?
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley

That sounds good to me. The idea has kind of languished for a while now, but I
think there are a couple of people getting more interested lately and trying to
move forward with a couple more definitions. It might be good to take that
start and try to get some more momentum behind it to get things going.

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Thierry Carrez]

Zane Bitter wrote:
> [...]> I definitely don't want to get rid of office hours, and I think the
> reasons for dropping the meeting (encouraging geographically diverse
> participation) are still valid. I'd like to see the TC come up with a
> program of work for the term after each Summit, and actively track the
> progress of it using asynchronous tools - perhaps Storyboard supported
> by follow-ups on the mailing list.

FWIW we did translate the work items we discussed in Dublin into a set
of StoryBoard stories at:

https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/923

But it's pretty recent :)

-- 
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2018-04-23 16:56:28 -0500 (-0500), Sean McGinnis wrote:
[...]
> I think Howard had an excellent idea of the TC coming up with
> themes for each cycle. I think that could be used to create a good
> cadence or focus to make sure we are making progress in key areas.
> 
> It struck me that we came up with the long term vision, but there
> really isn't too much attention paid to it. At least not in a
> regular way that keeps some of these goals in mind.
> 
> We could use the idea of cycle themes to make sure we are
> targetting key areas of that long term vision to help us move
> towards bringing that vision to reality.

So (straw man!) we can make Rocky "the constellations cycle"?
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Sean McGinnis]

> 
> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).
> 

I'm going to skip over some of the other questions in this one for now, but I
wanted to chime in on this one.

I think Howard had an excellent idea of the TC coming up with themes for each
cycle. I think that could be used to create a good cadence or focus to make
sure we are making progress in key areas.

It struck me that we came up with the long term vision, but there really isn't
too much attention paid to it. At least not in a regular way that keeps some of
these goals in mind.

We could use the idea of cycle themes to make sure we are targetting key areas
of that long term vision to help us move towards bringing that vision to
reality.

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Zane Bitter]

On 23/04/18 09:27, Doug Hellmann wrote:

[This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
ongoing election.]

We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
issues that affect the entire community.


I guess you can put me in the camp of wanting the TC to be proactive as 
well as reactive. I don't want to say it's not being active enough, but 
I do think it's valuable to proactively consider other ways in which we 
can be proactive.



Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.


A couple of examples that come to mind of the TC being actively involved 
in driving changes would be the addition of etcd3 to the required set of 
base services (alongside RabbitMQ and MySQL/MariaDB), and the 
project-wide goals initiative.


Those are both examples of decisions that need to be co-ordinated across 
the whole of OpenStack. Since the TC is the only elected body that 
represents the whole technical community, it needs to have a role in 
decisions such as those - either by making them directly or by 
delegating them to some group of experts. If it doesn't, we'll generally 
be stuck with the status quo by default. In my experience, major 
decisions getting made by default is a common failure mode in a lot of 
bad products.



Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
reactive ended up being the wrong choice.


This is a difficult one to answer, in part because being purely reactive 
need not be a choice - it's the default.


One example, that's closely related to the other thread, might be the 
way we've chosen to define the scope of OpenStack. That's largely been 
by reactively approving or rejecting projects as they requested to join, 
rather than by attempting to lay out a vision in more detail than our 
mission statement and correcting course when necessary in response to 
new project applications.


The picture that has emerged from that process has essentially been one 
of a full-featured cloud (which, for the record, I fully agree with) - 
most projects were approved. But as Chris pointed out there are plenty 
of folks out there who disagree with that. By not having a proactive 
debate we've missed an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of 
their concerns and address them as far as is possible. I believe there 
are a lot of folks still working at cross-purposes without a unified 
vision of what we're trying to build as a result.



If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
community culture).


One of my concerns is that the dropping of the weekly TC meeting with a 
published agenda in favour of the unstructured office hours has 
diminished the TC's ability to be proactive. For example, the 
constellations initiative was adopted by the TC as a goal to get 
underway by 2019 (barely more than 8 months away). Who is working on it? 
What is the status? What are the open questions requiring feedback? I 
don't know, and I follow #openstack-tc and the TC mailing list fairly 
closely compared to most people.


I definitely don't want to get rid of office hours, and I think the 
reasons for dropping the meeting (encouraging geographically diverse 
participation) are still valid. I'd like to see the TC come up with a 
program of work for the term after each Summit, and actively track the 
progress of it using asynchronous tools - perhaps Storyboard supported 
by follow-ups on the mailing list.


Perhaps we can also do more to, for example, empower SIGs to make 
recommendations on community-wide issues that the TC would then commit 
to either ratifying or rejecting within a fixed time frame. One reason 
that I think the TC is (correctly) wary of promulgating too many edicts 
is that they're perceived as difficult to change as circumstances 
demand. So reducing the cost of changes is key to allowing the TC to 
take a more active role without stifling the community.


cheers,
Zane.


If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
taking an active role in implementing.

Doug


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Graham Hayes]

On 23/04/18 14:27, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> ongoing election.]
> 
> We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> issues that affect the entire community.
> 
> Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.

I think the best example of the TC being proactive and it being the
right choice is the Visioning document and exercise.

> Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> reactive ended up being the wrong choice.

The InterOp testing and Tempest situation is the most vivid in my mind
(after being in the centre of it for months). Members of the TC were
proactive, but the TC as a whole was passive on it.

The TC reacted 3 or 4 days after the board had approved the program -
when we should have had an answer months before.

> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).

I do think the TC should be more active in driving OpenStack forward.
I think the TC has a role in listening to the developers who are driving
the projects forward, and connecting them with other project developers
where appropriate, while also co-ordinating with the User Committee, to
see where commonalities are, and then using its voice to drive change
in the foundation, and member companies (via the Board, foundation staff
and other potentially more informal avenues).

But for that, the TC will need to find a collective voice, that is
pro-active, as trying to drive a project in the manner above cannot
be reactive - by the time we develop a position that we are reacting
with it, it will be too late.

I think introducing more formal in-person blocks of time as a group is
important, with a time blocked agenda, and enforced chairing could help
us do that.

I know it is not a popular opinion, but a 1/2 day every 6 months where
all TC members can be available and attend the meeting can really help
a group find a mutual voice.

> If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> taking an active role in implementing.
> 
> Doug
> 
> __
> 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
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Rico Lin]

*IMO TC should be more active as possible. Since we try to use this
position to make policies, we should also consider hard how we can
broadcast those policies to each developer to provide guidelines and to get
possible feedbacks.To reach out current/potential technical contributors,
to sell this technical community and to communicate with other parts
(UC/Board/other communities/ops/users) and bring ideas/actions to renew our
policies or to the entire technical community. That will need TCs jump into
local/global events, meetings and MLs.I believe it's not just about what TC
defines our own duty, but most of the developers believe in TC's
governance.So I think we should definitely be more active and keep trying
to renew our goals. Here's example, I pretty sure a lot of developers from
our community doesn't know exactly what policy we were made.Which provides
the higher risk for gaps between what TCs think OpenStack and what they try
to present in their local community. I'm pretty sure such gaps exist in the
most local community (which developers learn what's current OpenStack looks
like) in Asia.As for the discussion on how to organize TCs to be more
active. To make a policy for that actually make sense to me since all TCs
should read through and follow policies which they made. Second to try to
reach out to project teams, rest of community, and other communities should
be a good start.*


2018-04-23 21:27 GMT+08:00 Doug Hellmann :

> [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> ongoing election.]
>
> We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> issues that affect the entire community.
>
> Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.
>
> Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> reactive ended up being the wrong choice.
>
> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).
>
> If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> taking an active role in implementing.
>
> Doug
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
May The Force of OpenStack Be With You,

*Rico Lin*irc: ricolin
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Chris Dent]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Doug Hellmann wrote:


We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
issues that affect the entire community.


Another good question. Like all the others I wish they had come a
bit earlier so that we had more time to deliberate and converse
before the elections start tonight. These deserve considerable
thought.

I hope it's no secret that I think the TC should be more active in
its leadership, both technically and culturally. Often the TC
operates as a kind of supreme court, leading from behind. Since I
joined the community four years ago I've often wished for a more
unified leadership from the front, and I think the representative
model provided by the TC (a model which transcends the individual
projects and concentrates on the bigger picture) could provide
that if we want it to.


Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.

Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
reactive ended up being the wrong choice.


I think the recent process which eventually led to clarification on
interop testing at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/550571/ is a
relatively good example of what might be described as active
reaction. Through consultation with many involved parties we changed
the rules to better reflect reality and support projects more
effectively.

At the same time, we failed to act quickly enough on the same topic
with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521602/ , where though some
parties had identified some clear problems, the TC (as a group)
failed to act in a timely fashion (there's a nearly two month gap
with no comments) to resolve them, in part because there wasn't
agreement that it was a domain that the TC should legislate.

My feeling is that if technical contributors to OpenStack are
involved, then that's a place where the TC can and should engage.


If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
community culture).


Despite my use of the term "legislate" above I think Howard's idea
of "a new direction outlook per cycle or per year" is a critical
aspect of what the TC should be doing. Setting tone and overarching
themes to help distinguish between what matters and what does not
matter. The vision statement was somewhat useful in this regard, but
we also need something that is more immediate term: thematic goals
for this cycle. OpenStack-wide goals are also helpful, but they tend
to be very specific and don't do much to help answer "no" to the
question: "is this thing I'm considering aligned with the current
themes?"

We've talked in the past about using time at the PTG to express
these themes but I think we need to do more than that. As you
(Doug), have said before: We need to habituate people to where they
can reliably find and discover information about what matters. This
will often mean what feels like a lot of repetition.

It will take effort to make these kinds of changes. We are large
enough now, and vest so much power and self-determination in the
individual projects, that it will take a lot of convincing and
orchestrating to make a significant culture change that aligns us on
common goals.

--
Chris Dent   ٩◔̯◔۶   https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Thierry Carrez]

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.

I think that the work on documenting our key principles was proactive,
and it really helped to set expectations for new people in our community.

> Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> reactive ended up being the wrong choice.

The definition of "base services" was also a proactive step, but it
failed (so far) to trigger the desired effect (solve the catch-22 around
etcd3).

> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).

Even if the proactive decisions were not all successful, I still think
the TC needs to be proactive rather than reactive. We are in a unique
position to be able to take a step back and look at the whole picture,
rather than look for the dead fish only once you start noticing the
smell. We have a few issues that bubbled up that are still unsolved
(like the decision on driver teams) which if we had addressed them
proactively would likely have been easier.

I don't think we need dramatic changes to be able to do active changes
effectively. The TC members generally have enough influence to drive
that. Some of them are a little shy in using that influence in this way,
though, so it ends up falling on the same smaller set of people to burn
their influence credit to drive governance change, and that only lasts
for so long. So I'd like to see the TC members (and more generally the
people interested in governance problems) more active in discovering
issues, proactively addressing them and owning the changes.

-- 
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Zhipeng Huang]

I don't have specific ideas now, but it would be great to have TC publish
something like a new direction outlook per cycle or per year, to summarize
that these x,y,z new areas are what the OpenStack Technical Committee
considers worth exploring for new directions and we will sponsor projects
that will do the development in these areas. Of course I think it would be
great for TC member to personally leading projects in these new directions,
but find a way to sponsor or encourage other people leading is also a great
choice :)

Hope this clarifies a bit :)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Doug Hellmann 
wrote:

> Excerpts from Zhipeng Huang's message of 2018-04-23 21:50:15 +0800:
> > In general I would prefer TC take an active role regarding exploring new
> > use cases and technology directions leverage the existing OpenStack
> > infrastructure. I would against TC being too active on project level
> > governance.
>
> This would be a new area for the TC to consider. Can you elaborate a bit
> on what you think we would need to change in order to support that, and
> why the TC is the best place to do it (rather than one of our other
> team-based structures like a project team or SIG)?
>
> >
> > For example we have been discussing about edge computing recently and we
> > don't have any idea on how a lightweight OpenStack should look like:
> maybe
> > no scheduling since edge is more about provisioning ? maybe a Rust
> > implementation of this lightweight version of OpenStack ? There are so
> many
> > interesting new things that yet to be explored and should be championed
> by
> > the TC.
> >
> > However regarding issues like how a project should govern itself, it is
> > better for TC to reactive and let project team driven its own structure.
> I
> > can't think of there is any concrete example on this matter now since TC
> > has been doing rather well on this matter , but I guess this could be a
> > precautious action :)
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Doug Hellmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-04-23 09:27:09 -0400:
> > > > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> > > > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> > > > understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> > > > ongoing election.]
> > > >
> > > > We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> > > > in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> > > > issues that affect the entire community.
> > > >
> > > > Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> > > > and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.
> > > >
> > > > Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> > > > reactive ended up being the wrong choice.
> > > >
> > > > If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> > > > than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> > > > etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> > > > which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> > > > organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> > > > community culture).
> > > >
> > > > If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> > > > overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> > > > taking an active role in implementing.
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > >
> > > There was a question from ttx on IRC [1] about my use of the terms
> > > "active" and "reactive" here. I mean active as "going out there and
> > > doing things and anticipating issues" and reactive as "dealing with
> > > things as they come up and aren't resolved in another way".
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%
> > > 23openstack-tc.2018-04-23.log.html
> > >
> > > 
> __
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
> >
> > Standard Engineer
> > IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> > Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> > Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> > Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
> >
> > (Previous)
> > Research Assistant
> > Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> > University of California, Irvine
> > Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> > Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
> >
> > OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Zhipeng Huang's message of 2018-04-23 21:50:15 +0800:
> In general I would prefer TC take an active role regarding exploring new
> use cases and technology directions leverage the existing OpenStack
> infrastructure. I would against TC being too active on project level
> governance.

This would be a new area for the TC to consider. Can you elaborate a bit
on what you think we would need to change in order to support that, and
why the TC is the best place to do it (rather than one of our other
team-based structures like a project team or SIG)?

> 
> For example we have been discussing about edge computing recently and we
> don't have any idea on how a lightweight OpenStack should look like: maybe
> no scheduling since edge is more about provisioning ? maybe a Rust
> implementation of this lightweight version of OpenStack ? There are so many
> interesting new things that yet to be explored and should be championed by
> the TC.
> 
> However regarding issues like how a project should govern itself, it is
> better for TC to reactive and let project team driven its own structure. I
> can't think of there is any concrete example on this matter now since TC
> has been doing rather well on this matter , but I guess this could be a
> precautious action :)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Doug Hellmann 
> wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-04-23 09:27:09 -0400:
> > > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> > > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> > > understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> > > ongoing election.]
> > >
> > > We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> > > in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> > > issues that affect the entire community.
> > >
> > > Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> > > and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.
> > >
> > > Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> > > reactive ended up being the wrong choice.
> > >
> > > If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> > > than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> > > etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> > > which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> > > organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> > > community culture).
> > >
> > > If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> > > overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> > > taking an active role in implementing.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > There was a question from ttx on IRC [1] about my use of the terms
> > "active" and "reactive" here. I mean active as "going out there and
> > doing things and anticipating issues" and reactive as "dealing with
> > things as they come up and aren't resolved in another way".
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > [1]
> > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%
> > 23openstack-tc.2018-04-23.log.html
> >
> > __
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
> 
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
> 
> (Previous)
> Research Assistant
> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> University of California, Irvine
> Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
> 
> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Zhipeng Huang]

In general I would prefer TC take an active role regarding exploring new
use cases and technology directions leverage the existing OpenStack
infrastructure. I would against TC being too active on project level
governance.

For example we have been discussing about edge computing recently and we
don't have any idea on how a lightweight OpenStack should look like: maybe
no scheduling since edge is more about provisioning ? maybe a Rust
implementation of this lightweight version of OpenStack ? There are so many
interesting new things that yet to be explored and should be championed by
the TC.

However regarding issues like how a project should govern itself, it is
better for TC to reactive and let project team driven its own structure. I
can't think of there is any concrete example on this matter now since TC
has been doing rather well on this matter , but I guess this could be a
precautious action :)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Doug Hellmann 
wrote:

> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-04-23 09:27:09 -0400:
> > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> > understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> > ongoing election.]
> >
> > We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> > in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> > issues that affect the entire community.
> >
> > Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> > and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.
> >
> > Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> > reactive ended up being the wrong choice.
> >
> > If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> > than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> > etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> > which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> > organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> > community culture).
> >
> > If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> > overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> > taking an active role in implementing.
> >
> > Doug
>
> There was a question from ttx on IRC [1] about my use of the terms
> "active" and "reactive" here. I mean active as "going out there and
> doing things and anticipating issues" and reactive as "dealing with
> things as they come up and aren't resolved in another way".
>
> Doug
>
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%
> 23openstack-tc.2018-04-23.log.html
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] campaign question: How "active" should the TC be?

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-04-23 09:27:09 -0400:
> [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> ongoing election.]
> 
> We frequently have discussions about whether the TC is active enough,
> in terms of driving new policies, technology choices, and other
> issues that affect the entire community.
> 
> Please describe one case where we were either active or reactive
> and how that was shown to be the right choice over time.
> 
> Please describe another case where the choice to be active or
> reactive ended up being the wrong choice.
> 
> If you think the TC should tend to be more active in driving change
> than it is today, please describe the changes (policy, culture,
> etc.) you think would need to be made to do that effectively (not
> which policies you want us to be more active on, but *how* to
> organize the TC to be more active and have that work within the
> community culture).
> 
> If you think the TC should tend to be less active in driving change
> overall, please describe what policies you think the TC should be
> taking an active role in implementing.
> 
> Doug

There was a question from ttx on IRC [1] about my use of the terms
"active" and "reactive" here. I mean active as "going out there and
doing things and anticipating issues" and reactive as "dealing with
things as they come up and aren't resolved in another way".

Doug

[1]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-23.log.html

__
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