[Openstack-operators] Diversity WG
At the Sydney Summit, there seemed to be interest in re-activating the Diversity WG. I am sending this email to give some background on the group as well as to gauge interest. A charter was proposed to the board May 2015 by Egle Sigler, Kavit Munshi, and Imad Sousou to form the group [1]. The group was formed a short time later with Egle Sigler and Carol Barrett as co-chairs and falling under the oversight of the Board. The main work of the diversity group was the diversity survey and its results which were released prior to the Tokyo Summit in October, 2015 and we had about 20 people show up for the Working Group session held there to go over the results. A working group session was also held at the Austin Summit with about 10 people in attendance. It was not long after the Austin summit that the group membership dwindled down and activity ended. Things that came out of the work of the Diversity WG are the Git and Gerrit Lunch and Learn held at the last 5 summits, the Communication Tools Lunch and Learn held in Barcelona, and the Greeters in Barcelona that were provided by the Women of OpenStack. I feel there is still work to do in this area even if only revisiting the survey and gathering more data that can be evaluated and used to help grow the community. If you are interested in helping to revive the Diversity WG please let me know. The group used the Foundation mailing list ( foundat...@lists.openstack.org) with the [Diversity] tag and still has the #openstack-diversity channel on Freenode though it is not currently being logged as Egle and myself until recently were the only 2 members. Thanks, Amy Marrich (spotz) [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Diversity/ProposedCharter ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Openstack-sigs] [QA] Proposal for a QA SIG
Rochelle Grober wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> One question I have is whether we'd need to keep the "QA" project team at >> all. Personally I think it would create confusion to keep it around, for no >> gain. >> SIGs code contributors get voting rights for the TC anyway, and SIGs are free >> to ask for space at the PTG... so there is really no reason (imho) to keep a >> "QA" project team in parallel to the SIG ? > > Well, you can get rid of the "QA Project Team" but you would then need to > replace it with something like the Tempest Project, or perhaps the Test > Project. You still need a PTL and cores to write, review and merge tempest > fixes and upgrades, along with some of the tests. The Interop Guideline > tests are part of Tempest because being there provides oversight on the style > and quality of the code of those tests. We still need that. SIGs can totally produce some code (and have review teams), but I agree that in this case this code is basically a part of "the product" (rather than a tool produced by guild of practitioners) and therefore makes sense to be kept in an upstream project team. Let's keep things the way they are, while we work out other changes that may trigger other organizational shuffles (like reusing our project infrastructure beyond just OpenStack). I wonder if we should not call the SIG under a different name to reduce the confusion between QA-the-project-team and QA-the-SIG. Collaborative Testing SIG? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
