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
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
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
>
> 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
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
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
*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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.]
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
