(Rendered version: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-31.html )
Writing these reports is somewhat difficult when there hasn't been a
meeting and we're in a crunch time in the release cycle. The things
that have happened that are related to TC activity are disjointed, a
bit hard to track, and hard to summarize. There have, however, been a
few blips in IRC traffic in `#openstack-tc` and in the [governance
repo](https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance+status:open),
so I'll attempt to apply my entirely subjective eye to those things.
# Tags, Projects, Deliverables, Oh My
The review to add the [api interop assert
tag](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/482759/) to ironic and nova has
foundered a bit on the diversity of opinions on not just what that
specific tag means, but what tags in general mean, and who uses them.
There's plenty of conversation on that review, as well as most
recently [some
chatter](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-08-01.log.html#t2017-08-01T09:30:55)
in this morning's office hour.
One outcome of the discussion (in its many places) is that the primary
use of the tags is to engineer a technical solution to a marketing
problem, in the form of the [Project
Navigator](https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator/). As
such it tends to get messy at the interface and difference between the
boundaries and identifiers that matter to the people developing the
projects and the boundaries and identifiers that matter to the people
promoting or using the project navigator. It can also mean that anyone
who is aware of the marketing value of the tags may experince
conflicts when considering any of the tags which may be voluntarily
asserted.
The current case in point is that if asserting the api
interoperability tag is presented as a sign of maturity in the
navigator, any project that considers itself mature would like to not
be penalized in the event that they are mature in a way that is not
in alignment with the tag.
# The Top 5 List, Barbican, Designate, Castellan
Another topic from [this morning's office
hour](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-08-01.log.html#t2017-08-01T09:01:39)
was discussing whether it might make sense to put contribution to the
barbican and designate projects on the [Top 5
List](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html)
and/or make them [base
services](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/base-services.html)
(there's something of a chicken and egg problem there).
[Later in the
day](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-08-01.log.html#t2017-08-01T13:23:01)
the topic was picked back up, with dims suggesting that castellan
should be the base requirement, not barbican. Castellan, however, does
not yet satisfy all the needs designate would have, if doing DNSSEC.
Further discussion required, as far as I could tell.
# Increasing Engagement From And With People In China
[Last Thursday's office
hour](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-07-27.log.html#t2017-07-27T15:00:39)
started with a brief report about China where ttx and many others had
been at [OpenStack Days China](http://openstackdaychina.org/). This
led to a discussion about the many difficulties present in synchronous
communication technologies including all forms of chat, audio and
video. Each presents difficulties either in terms of comprehension,
limited access, or issues with latency.
yeh, we need to get people less al[l]ergic to doing real conversations
in email :) [sdague](http://p.anticdent.org/2Hac)
(Words to live by.)
--
Chris Dent ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) 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
