Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-17 Thread Emilien Macchi
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 2:55 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> The TC meetings are held in IRC and that may somewhat mitigate the
>> issue for non-native English speakers, but I've had problems myself
>> keeping up at times with the flurry of comments.  In any case, I think
>> it would be good to include language in the pile of concerns over
>> world-wide participation
>
>
> I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I
> do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns
> everything out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel
> conversations going on during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to
> follow along, or get a thought in the mix. That has to be much worse for a
> non-native English speaker.

It is worse and one of the reasons why non-native or not-so-fluent
English speakers have hard time to interact during this meeting.

> So yeah, slow down folks. :)
>
> I'm not advocating splitting the meetings though. It's possible to have your
> cake and eat it to if done properly. For example, Alex Xu runs the Nova API
> subteam meeting and we have people from China, India, Japan, UK and USA and
> get through it fine, but it does involve slowing down to get an
> acknowledgement from people that they are OK with any decisions being made.

I'm personaly not in favor of taking decisions during the TC meeting
for the reasons you just mentioned: timezone & parallel discussions...
I would be in favor of pushing more in async rather than expecting a
lot from this meeting.

> This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the
> flurry of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe the
> minutes should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list. I know the
> meeting is logged, but it can be hard to read through that without one's
> eyes glazing over due to the cross-talk and locker-room towel whipping going
> on.
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> __
> 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



-- 
Emilien Macchi

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-14 Thread Matt Riedemann

On 4/14/2017 7:12 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote:


I just happened to be in a meeting with an associate who is on the TSC of Open 
Daylight.  After the meeting he asked me about the release schedules of 
OpenStack and whether the recent change was a one off or , would now be offset 
like the last or.  It appears that ODL sets their releases to two week 
after OpenStack's then other Open networking projects cascade behind Open 
Daylight.  These TSCs don't know where to go to get the info/new schedules, 
etc.  Itg might be nice to find out what they need from us and provide a 
channel for them to ask questions.  TC might be a good contact point.  But TC 
can certainly come up with possible solution(s).  Which could open all these 
projects work a towards a more open coordination or cooperation with us.  I 
think that would be sooo cool.



So there is a community elsewhere that depends on the OpenStack release 
schedule, and they couldn't find the openstack release docs by googling 
for it?


https://releases.openstack.org/

I get the part about not knowing if the short Ocata cycle was a one time 
thing, or alternating, or what it was.


As for a place to ask questions, they don't know about the mailing list 
or IRC? Like just #openstack or #openstack-dev for generic questions.


I'm not trying to slight this issue or this other community, I'm just 
wondering how the basic communication channel was missed.


Maybe there is something missing from https://www.openstack.org/learn/ 
but even googling for "openstack forum" gets 
https://ask.openstack.org/en/questions/ as the first hit.


--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-14 Thread Dean Troyer
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Rochelle Grober
 wrote:
> Part 1: tldr; publish the resolutions to the key MLs at least when they are 
> approved.

This was done for a time via blog posts, I recall talk about
resurrecting that, this may help increate the priority of following up
on that thought.

> Part 2: tldr; establish some kind of communications channel with other 
> TCs/TSCs that have dependencies on OpenStack
>
> I just happened to be in a meeting with an associate who is on the TSC of 
> Open Daylight.  After the meeting he asked me about the release schedules of 
> OpenStack and whether the recent change was a one off or , would now be 
> offset like the last or.  It appears that ODL sets their releases to two 
> week after OpenStack's then other Open networking projects cascade behind 
> Open Daylight.  These TSCs don't know where to go to get the info/new 
> schedules, etc.  Itg might be nice to find out what they need from us and 
> provide a channel for them to ask questions.  TC might be a good contact 
> point.  But TC can certainly come up with possible solution(s).  Which could 
> open all these projects work a towards a more open coordination or 
> cooperation with us.  I think that would be sooo cool.

The TC could certainly be a point of contact, I think it would also be
appropriate to hook up individual members as these sorts of things are
discovered to establish relationships.  Often times the TC will
delegate one or a few people to be contact points for things like this
anyway.

Communication-wise, this seems to be to be the sort of thing -announce
mailing lists should be used for.  Going back a couple of weeks I see
our -announce list consists of a lot of release announcements for
individual deliverables and a couple of OSSA's.  I'm not trying to
resurrect the debate over what that list should be used for, but it
does seem like that might have been a place for those not involved in
our community on a daily basis to see those sorts of announcements go
by.  That said, the release schedule and info really is easy to find
via your favorite search: "openstack release schedule" on Google
results in a table with recent release dates appearing even before the
first search result, which happens to be
https://releases.openstack.org.  The point is taken however, and I do
believe you are right Rocky that is something we should get more
proactive with regards to our neighboring communities.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-14 Thread Rochelle Grober


Matt Riedemann, Monday, April 10, 2017 1:41 PM
On 4/10/2017 2:55 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
>
> The TC meetings are held in IRC and that may somewhat mitigate the 
> issue for non-native English speakers, but I've had problems myself 
> keeping up at times with the flurry of comments.  In any case, I think 
> it would be good to include language in the pile of concerns over 
> world-wide participation

I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I do 
I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns everything out. 
I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel conversations going on during 
a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to follow along, or get a thought in 
the mix. That has to be much worse for a non-native English speaker.

So yeah, slow down folks. :)

I'm not advocating splitting the meetings though. It's possible to have your 
cake and eat it to if done properly. For example, Alex Xu runs the Nova API 
subteam meeting and we have people from China, India, Japan, UK and USA and get 
through it fine, but it does involve slowing down to get an acknowledgement 
from people that they are OK with any decisions being made.

This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the flurry 
of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe the minutes should 
be digested after the meeting in the mailing list. I know the meeting is 
logged, but it can be hard to read through that without one's eyes glazing over 
due to the cross-talk and locker-room towel whipping going on.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt


I read through the thread (or at least a very large chunk of it) and realized 
something still missing and something sort of related that I'd like to pass on.

Part 1: tldr; publish the resolutions to the key MLs at least when they are 
approved.

I like the idea of some sort of regularly scheduled summary of work in 
progress/completed/needing input.  And I realized that the TC generally works 
through resolutions, but I can't remember seeing the finished resolutions 
actually published to the dev, ops, or user-committee mailing lists.  Either 
you follow the TC meetings, or you subscribe to the governance review project, 
or you serendipitously discover the published resolutions when they come out or 
when you go looking for something else in the same vicinity.  It would be great 
if there were checkpoints on thes resolutions that publish to the mailing 
lists.  Maybe, first draft for wider audience, final call for comments and 
published resolution, or some subset depending on the size/importance/etc. of 
the resolution.

Part 2: tldr; establish some kind of communications channel with other TCs/TSCs 
that have dependencies on OpenStack

I just happened to be in a meeting with an associate who is on the TSC of Open 
Daylight.  After the meeting he asked me about the release schedules of 
OpenStack and whether the recent change was a one off or , would now be offset 
like the last or.  It appears that ODL sets their releases to two week 
after OpenStack's then other Open networking projects cascade behind Open 
Daylight.  These TSCs don't know where to go to get the info/new schedules, 
etc.  Itg might be nice to find out what they need from us and provide a 
channel for them to ask questions.  TC might be a good contact point.  But TC 
can certainly come up with possible solution(s).  Which could open all these 
projects work a towards a more open coordination or cooperation with us.  I 
think that would be sooo cool.

Apologize for the extended verbiage, but, those who know me, know that's me.

And some really great discussions here.

Thanks,
--Rocky
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-13 Thread Julien Danjou
On Wed, Apr 12 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
> one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
> #openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
> of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
> feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
> during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
> to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
> would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
> and final decision.
>
> It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
> to hear other ideas :)

+1

We ditched meeting a while ago in Telemetry without any regret.
Discussions happen when needed on IRC and when people are around, and if
they're not or it requires more thinking we just go to email.

Requiring people to connect and block a full hour at any time of the day
(or night) never have been a good and productive idea. Sometimes I feel
like OpenStack stole this idea from "Worst Ideas In Enterprise
Management Practice". ;)

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   https://julien.danjou.info */


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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 07:05:42PM +0900, Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
> 
> As a version of this idea, I was thinking of an #openstack-tc IRC channel, 
> but wanted to give it another thought before bringing it up. :) While I don’t 
> have the intention to necessarily increase the number of IRC channels we 
> have, this would give us the ability to follow the TC related discussion 
> better.
> 
> By being experienced with working remotely, I like channels with smaller well 
> defined scope/purpose as I can prioritize which one to read first and I don’t 
> need to filter that much of the different, sometimes parallel threads to 
> catch up on what happened. Also when I see activity on these channels I get a 
> better indicator whether I need to/want to look into the discussion 
> immediately and be part of it or not. I don’t want to decrease the importance 
> of #openstack-dev (or any other already existing channel), but rather noting 
> that it has a broader scope that might be distracting.
> 

+2!

> My 2 cents.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ildikó
> 

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Dean Troyer
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
> one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
> #openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
> of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
> feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
> during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
> to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
> would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
> and final decision.

This sounds like a form of 'office hours' format, and I like the idea.
We could even try to get come semi-firm commitments from TC members to
be present at particular times (spread out TZ-wise) to ensure some
planning is possible.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Ed Leafe
On Apr 12, 2017, at 9:44 AM, gordon chung  wrote:

>> If there was ONE thing, one
>> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
>> this election round and the next, what would it be ?
> 
> this is a really good question! if we're all honest with ourselves, most
> of the rhetoric in the self-nominations are far to grand to be
> accomplished in multiple terms let alone one term which is normal for
> campaigning. it's good to consider what you would consider a success at
> the end of your term(s), whether or you succeed at it or not (i swear
> i'm not a manager).

Very good point. In my case, I presented the goal, knowing that at best I might 
be able to nudge the OpenStack world a bit closer in that direction.

-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread gordon chung


On 10/04/17 05:16 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

this is a really good question! if we're all honest with ourselves, most 
of the rhetoric in the self-nominations are far to grand to be 
accomplished in multiple terms let alone one term which is normal for 
campaigning. it's good to consider what you would consider a success at 
the end of your term(s), whether or you succeed at it or not (i swear 
i'm not a manager).

best of luck to the candidates.

cheers,

-- 
gord
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread German Eichberger
I have read very good ideas in this thread but I somehow can’t shake the 
feeling that people who are quite comfortable with the irc meeting are looking 
for a solution for people who are not.  So, before we do any changes I would 
send out a survey and see what the developers we are serving actually want. 

In my experience interacting with the TC it has always been tough to get in 
touch with people and I will therefore institute (at least for me) office hours 
where you can interact with me each week and bring me your issues. 

To close, the other day I was listening to somebody describing how she picked 
mentors. Not being a native English speaker she picked her mentors based on if 
they would speak in her native language with her. This really drives home the 
point about diversity and how important it is to recruit and sponsor people 
from different backgrounds for the TC. 

Thanks,
German

On 4/12/17, 7:30 AM, "Flavio Percoco"  wrote:

On 12/04/17 11:07 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
>>> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor >> > wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
>>> for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine
>>> can be hard to follow even with time to read.
>>>
>>> IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo,
>>> totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back
>>> before a pile of people become mortally insulted.
>>>
>>> Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might
>>> not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if
>>> you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.
>>
>> Big +1 on balance.
>>
>> I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and
>> how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as
>> possible.
>>
>> That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time
>> for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as
>> opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions.
>> I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same
>> big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and
>> bringing the community forward.
>> [...]
>
>Agree with you Ildiko and Monty, we still need sync communication to get
>a better feel of everyone's feelings on a particular issue, especially
>on complex issues. At the same time, a unique weekly meeting is actively
>preventing people from participating. It is also very active and noisy,
>the timebox can be painful, and its weekly cadence makes a good reason
>for procrastinating in reviews until the topic is raised in meeting,
>where final decision is made. Creating multiple official meetings
>spreads the pain instead of eliminating it. It makes it easier for more
>people to join, but more difficult for any given member to participate
>to every meeting. Our ability to quickly process changes might be affected.
>
>One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
>one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
>#openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
>of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
>feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
>during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
>to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
>would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
>and final decision.
>
>It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
>to hear other ideas :)


I believe I shared this with you on one of our conversations over dinner one
night. I'm glad to see you're more convinced now. I've talked about this 
with
you and other folks among the TC and I'm growing more convinced that it's 
the
right thing to do.

I've toyed with this idea for a bit already and I also mentioned it in my 
reply
to Matt[0] yesterday. As I mentioned in my email, I believe most can be 
achieved
on gerrit and we can instead focus on having a better way for ad-hoc
conversations and mentoring of people that need support from the TC.

[0] 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115255.html

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Matthew Treinish
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:16:57AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations
> and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit
> better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic
> question on available time and top priority.
> 
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
> responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
> it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
> Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
> or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
> is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
> through the governance process.
> 
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

I know personally I'm planning to dedicate more time over the next cycle to TC
activities. Something for me personally that came out of doing the visioning
exercise last month was that it did give me an opportunity to reflect on what
I viewed as priorities for the next 2 years.

So I think for me, as I outlined in the candidacy email, the one initiative I'd
really like to make a push for over the next 6 months is to start working on
trying build up the systems in place to support both part time contributors and
working on growing new leaders in the community. Realistically I don't think
either is completely accomplishable in 6 months, but getting a good start and
making initial progress is.

Thanks,

Matt Treinish


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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 12/04/17 11:07 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Ildiko Vancsa wrote:

On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor > wrote:
[...]
Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine
can be hard to follow even with time to read.

IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo,
totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back
before a pile of people become mortally insulted.

Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might
not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if
you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.


Big +1 on balance.

I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and
how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as
possible.

That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time
for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as
opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions.
I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same
big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and
bringing the community forward.
[...]


Agree with you Ildiko and Monty, we still need sync communication to get
a better feel of everyone's feelings on a particular issue, especially
on complex issues. At the same time, a unique weekly meeting is actively
preventing people from participating. It is also very active and noisy,
the timebox can be painful, and its weekly cadence makes a good reason
for procrastinating in reviews until the topic is raised in meeting,
where final decision is made. Creating multiple official meetings
spreads the pain instead of eliminating it. It makes it easier for more
people to join, but more difficult for any given member to participate
to every meeting. Our ability to quickly process changes might be affected.

One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
#openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
and final decision.

It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
to hear other ideas :)



I believe I shared this with you on one of our conversations over dinner one
night. I'm glad to see you're more convinced now. I've talked about this with
you and other folks among the TC and I'm growing more convinced that it's the
right thing to do.

I've toyed with this idea for a bit already and I also mentioned it in my reply
to Matt[0] yesterday. As I mentioned in my email, I believe most can be achieved
on gerrit and we can instead focus on having a better way for ad-hoc
conversations and mentoring of people that need support from the TC.

[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115255.html

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread John Garbutt
On 12 April 2017 at 10:07, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
>>> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor >> > wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
>>> for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine
>>> can be hard to follow even with time to read.
>>>
>>> IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo,
>>> totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back
>>> before a pile of people become mortally insulted.
>>>
>>> Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might
>>> not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if
>>> you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.
>>
>> Big +1 on balance.
>>
>> I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and
>> how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as
>> possible.
>>
>> That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time
>> for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as
>> opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions.
>> I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same
>> big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and
>> bringing the community forward.
>> [...]
>
> Agree with you Ildiko and Monty, we still need sync communication to get
> a better feel of everyone's feelings on a particular issue, especially
> on complex issues. At the same time, a unique weekly meeting is actively
> preventing people from participating. It is also very active and noisy,
> the timebox can be painful, and its weekly cadence makes a good reason
> for procrastinating in reviews until the topic is raised in meeting,
> where final decision is made. Creating multiple official meetings
> spreads the pain instead of eliminating it. It makes it easier for more
> people to join, but more difficult for any given member to participate
> to every meeting. Our ability to quickly process changes might be affected.
>
> One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
> one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
> #openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
> of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
> feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
> during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
> to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
> would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
> and final decision.

+1 on eliminating the meeting.

+1 on the need for the synchronous discussions, that are documented
and linked back to the gerrit review.

One idea that came up talking about the SWG, was a wiki page with a
weekly status update, that gets emailed out each week by the TC
chairperson. The chair has to chase folks who don't update it, ping
folks for their vote on patches they are ignoring, etc. Maybe it would
end up looking like the API-WG emails that cdent sends out, which
links to reviews that are the current focus as possible merge
candidates.

We often only merge things in the meeting, but if we went more towards
expecting a +1 from all members then as soon as all the required +1s
are present the chairperson is free to merge (and maybe timeouts using
the weekly email in API-WG style).

I strongly believe we need to try not having the meeting, and be more
globally inclusive in the TCs activities. I see the TC as a core team,
rather than the only people working on governance type activities. We
all need to work together to maintain and improve the community
vibrant we have. I think success is when we have people from all
around the globe involved in TC related activities and reviews.

Many thanks,
johnthetubaguy

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread John Garbutt
On 11 April 2017 at 09:58, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate
>> contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
>>
>> The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
>>
>> I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
>> adopted an alternating meeting schedule?
>>
>> For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's
>> already hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within
>> projects and especially across the community, in large part because of
>> the timezone barrier.
>>
>> How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at
>> least every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world
>> can attend?
>
> The current meeting time is more a consequence of the current membership
> composition than a hard rule. There is, however (as you point out) much
> chicken-and-egg effect at play here -- it's easier to get involved in
> the TC if you can regularly attend meetings, so we can't really wait
> until someone is elected to change the time.

+1 on the chicken-and-egg problem here.

If elected I plan on not attending the meetings, to help with this, please see:
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/election/tree/candidates/pike/TC/johnthetubaguy.txt

> Alternating meeting times would certainly improve the situation, but I'm
> not sure they are the best solution. Personally I would rather try to
> decrease our dependency on meetings.

+1 this.

I think finding better ways of working that don't need synchronous
meetings that naturally exclude someone is the way forward here. We
have the tooling for most of this already, we just need to find better
patterns to keep making progress.

IRC meeting also have lots of the issues documented as mentioned on
this thread. Been working with the SWG group to bring ideas together
here:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/441923/

Thanks,
johnthetubaguy

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Ildiko Vancsa

> […]
> One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
> one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
> #openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
> of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
> feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
> during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
> to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
> would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
> and final decision.
> 
> It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
> to hear other ideas :)

Sold! As far as I’m concerned. :)

As a version of this idea, I was thinking of an #openstack-tc IRC channel, but 
wanted to give it another thought before bringing it up. :) While I don’t have 
the intention to necessarily increase the number of IRC channels we have, this 
would give us the ability to follow the TC related discussion better.

By being experienced with working remotely, I like channels with smaller well 
defined scope/purpose as I can prioritize which one to read first and I don’t 
need to filter that much of the different, sometimes parallel threads to catch 
up on what happened. Also when I see activity on these channels I get a better 
indicator whether I need to/want to look into the discussion immediately and be 
part of it or not. I don’t want to decrease the importance of #openstack-dev 
(or any other already existing channel), but rather noting that it has a 
broader scope that might be distracting.

My 2 cents.

Thanks,
Ildikó


> 
> -- 
> 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


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Thierry Carrez
Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
>> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor > > wrote:
>> [...]
>> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and
>> for replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine
>> can be hard to follow even with time to read.
>>
>> IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo,
>> totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back
>> before a pile of people become mortally insulted.
>>
>> Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might
>> not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if
>> you just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.
> 
> Big +1 on balance.
> 
> I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and
> how to provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as
> possible.
> 
> That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time
> for synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as
> opposed to a group of people driving their own and some shared missions.
> I think it helps with seeing maybe different parts but still the same
> big picture and making the group more efficient with decision making and
> bringing the community forward.
> [...]

Agree with you Ildiko and Monty, we still need sync communication to get
a better feel of everyone's feelings on a particular issue, especially
on complex issues. At the same time, a unique weekly meeting is actively
preventing people from participating. It is also very active and noisy,
the timebox can be painful, and its weekly cadence makes a good reason
for procrastinating in reviews until the topic is raised in meeting,
where final decision is made. Creating multiple official meetings
spreads the pain instead of eliminating it. It makes it easier for more
people to join, but more difficult for any given member to participate
to every meeting. Our ability to quickly process changes might be affected.

One idea I've been considering is eliminating the one and only sacred
one-hour weekly TC meeting, and encouraging ad-hoc discussions (on
#openstack-dev for example) between change proposers and smaller groups
of TC members present in the same timezone. That would give us a good
feel of what everyone thinks, reduce noise, and happen at various times
during the day on a public forum, giving an opportunity for more people
to jump in the discussion. The informal nature of those discussions
would make the governance reviews the clear focal point for coordination
and final decision.

It's clearly not the perfect silver bullet though, so I'd very much like
to hear other ideas :)

-- 
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-12 Thread Ildiko Vancsa

> On 2017. Apr 12., at 3:18, Monty Taylor  wrote:
> 
> On 04/10/2017 04:41 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> 
>>> This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the
>>> flurry of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe
>>> the minutes should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list.
>>> I know the meeting is logged, but it can be hard to read through that
>>> without one's eyes glazing over due to the cross-talk and locker-room
>>> towel whipping going on.
>> 
>> Aw, you beat me to it. This is part of what I was going to say in
>> response to your earlier message. I think there are at least three
>> things to do, all of which you've touched on:
>> 
>> * Alternating the meetings, despite the issues with quorum, probably
>>  ought to happen. If the issues with quorum are insurmountable that
>>  may say something important about the TC's choice to be dependent
>>  on IRC meetings. Is it habit? Doesn't most of the real voting
>>  happen in gerrit? Can more of the discussion happen in email? I
>>  think we (by we I mean all of OpenStack) can and should rely on
>>  email more than we do expressly for the purpose of enabling people
>>  to include themselves according to their own schedules and their
>>  own speeds of comprehension.
> 
> Oh god. I feel like I'm going to start a vi-vs-emacs here ...
> 
> (Before I do - I agree with alternating meetings)
> 
> Email has similar but opposite problems- in that in email the lag is often 
> too long, rather than too short. This can lead to:
> 
> - person A says a thing, then goes to sleep, because it's 1AM in their 
> timezone.
> - 1000 people start a flame war based on a poor choice of phrase in the 
> original email while person A sleeps
> - person A wakes up and is horrified to see what their simple sentence has 
> done, begins day drinking
> 
> Now, as you might imagine the specifics might vary slightly - but I say the 
> above to actually suggest that rather than it being an either/or - _both_ are 
> important, and must be balanced over time.
> 
> Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and for 
> replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine can be hard 
> to follow even with time to read.
> 
> IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo, totes 
> sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back before a pile 
> of people become mortally insulted.
> 
> Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might not, 
> and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if you just don't 
> respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.
> 

Big +1 on balance.

I agree in general that we need to revisit how to be more inclusive and how to 
provide as equal conditions to people all around the globe as possible.

That said I still would like to keep the ability to have allocated time for 
synchronous communication and allow the TC to be more of a team as opposed to a 
group of people driving their own and some shared missions. I think it helps 
with seeing maybe different parts but still the same big picture and making the 
group more efficient with decision making and bringing the community forward.

By being a team person I also often feel the need to discuss items as it helps 
my brain to focus and elaborate better or come up with new ideas, while with 
offline communication it is easy to get distracted and miss some aspects of the 
given problem or idea.

However, especially as a non-native-English-speaker, I sometimes like to have 
the ability to read through a discussion maybe even several times before 
forming my response to it as opposed to being rushed to answer. :)

Thanks,
Ildikó


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Ildiko Vancsa
> 
>> Reliability is the key for them. But for the services and
>> applications that are built on top of this base? I'd like to see
>> allowing them a much more open approach: let them develop in whatever
>> language they like, release when they feel the timing is right, and
>> define their own CI testing. In other words, if you want to develop
>> in a language other than Python, go for it! If you want to use a
>> particular NoSQL database, sure thing! However, the price of that
>> freedom is that the burden will be on the project to ensure that it
>> is adequately tested, instead of laying that responsibility on our
>> infra team.
> 
> This is *precisely* what the Big Tent was all about: opening up the "what is 
> an OpenStack project" idea to more newcomers and competing implementations 
> with the condition that the shared cross-project teams like docs and infra 
> would be enablers and not doers. Instead of creating infrastructure for all 
> the new project teams, the infra team would transition to providing guidance 
> for how the project teams should set up gate jobs for themselves. Instead of 
> writing documentation for the project teams, the docs team would instead 
> provide guidance to new teams on how to write docs that integrate effectively 
> with the existing docs tooling.


I think you raised a very important point by putting emphasis on enablement. In 
my view the fact that we experienced the advantages and disadvantages of being 
more centralized in these areas is an important and useful experience. In my 
view it is crucial to remain a continuously evolving community where we are not 
afraid of making changes even if sometimes they seem to happen slowly.

Being somewhat involved in the documentation team’s activities I’m happy to say 
that the team took many steps towards and is still working on [1] the direction 
you mentioned by moving (back) content to the project repositories and by this 
making it easier for the teams to update and maintain those parts, while still 
having the guidance of the docs team both for wording and tooling.

Thanks,
Ildikó

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/439122/ 
 __
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Ildiko Vancsa
Hi All,

> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?

As a member of the OpenStack Foundation staff I have 100% of my time dedicated 
to the community let that be working with our ecosystem members, helping new 
contributors to join or keeping contact and accelerate collaboration with 
adjacent communities.

Defining an exact amount of time might be challenging as I see plenty of 
overlapping between my tasks and the TC’s scope, which means many of my 
activities serve multiple purpose. While we all have different load on a weekly 
basis I’m dedicated to secure enough time and focus on average to be a reliable 
and valuable TC member.

> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

As others before me pointed out very well picking one item is very hard, nearly 
impossible. I always search for the relation between items and challenges along 
with observing the different aspects of them. My main focus areas currently are 
Telecom/NFV and the Upstream Institute activities. One of the connection points 
between these two is on-boarding, which I would like to highlight here as the 
ONE.

While we’ve already come a long way with working together with the Telecom 
industry we still have a long journey ahead of us. On-boarding boils down to be 
and remain to be an open and open minded community and a helpful environment. 
In my view accepting new developers and new technologies requires very similar 
skills and mindset and requires us to keep OpenStack a welcoming and also an 
innovative place, where I would like to refer back to the challenges mentioned 
in an earlier discussion on this thread about allowing competition and 
exploring new ideas and ways of doing things.

Being or not being a TC member, my pick is to continue helping with the 
different aspects of on-boarding and make the teams along with the technical 
committee and community to be more open to accept new members with new view 
points and ideas and improve communication and collaboration between the 
related parties. In my opinion this helps to improve and maintain our solid and 
stable basis which makes us being able to deal with the technical and 
collaboration challenges - listed on this thread - together.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó


> 
> Thanks in advance for your answers !
> 
> -- 
> 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


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Ed Leafe
On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:

>>  The IaaS parts
>> (and yes, I know that just which parts these are is a whole debate in
>> itself) should be rock-solid, slow-moving, and, well, boring.
> 
> A fine idea. Unfortunately, what the majority of end users keep asking for is 
> yet more features, especially features that expose more and more internals of 
> the infrastructure and hardware to the power user (admin or orchestrator).

And they always will. But my point was that those things should be added 
without causing the existing system to become unstable. Stability of the 
foundation allows for much more interesting things to be built on top.

> This is *precisely* what the Big Tent was all about:

Totally agree! The key word, unfortunately, is "was". I don't believe that we 
have seen the results to the degree that we envisioned.

I would add that it isn't simply the choice of tools or language, but also 
their API. Monasca had an uphill struggle because some of their API overlapped 
with other projects, especially Ceilometer. Never mind that it might offer a 
better solution than something like Ceilometer; since Ceilometer was there 
first, Monasca  I would prefer to see these projects be free to develop good, 
solid APIs, and if there is functional overlap or API overlap, so be it. This 
avoids the "first one wins" hurdle. Let each project stand on their own merits. 
If it isn't better than what already exists, no one will use it and it will 
wither away. But if it is better, then that makes our ecosystem that much 
richer.

>> > Such projects will also have to accept a tag such as
>> 'experimental' or 'untested' until they can demonstrate otherwise.
> 
> This already exists, in a much more fine-grained fashion, as originally 
> designed into the concept of the Big Tent:
> 
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
> 
> Are you just recommending that the TC controls more of those tags?


Yes! One of the thing that was painful to watch in the tag development process 
was the strong aversion to saying anything that might be considered negative 
about a project, as if stating that, say, a project wasn't fully tested would 
hurt someone's feelings. A more open development environment will require such 
technical evaluations, and not all will be positive. The TC should definitely 
work on making this happen.

>> This can also serve to encourage the development of additional
>> testing resources around, say, Golang projects, so that the Golang
>> community can all pitch in and develop the sort of infrastructure
>> needed to adequately test their products, both alone and in
>> conjunction with the IaaS core of OpenStack. The only thing that
>> should be absolute is a project's commitment to the Four Opens. There
>> will be winners, and there will be losers, and that's not only OK,
>> it's how it should be.
> 
> I'm not grasping how the above doesn't already represent the state of the 
> OpenStack governance world?

It's a matter of emphasis. There wasn't any governance that said that a 
project's API can't overlap with an existing project, but that was the message 
that the TC sent to Monasca. This should be changed to a positive statement 
about encouraging competition and new approaches. I'd like the Four Opens to 
remain an absolute, but that's about it. Duplicated effort? Solving the same or 
a similar problem as another project? Those things shouldn't matter (outside of 
the IaaS core projects). Teams should be free to decide if working with another 
team is the best approach, or going it alone, for example.


-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Monty Taylor

On 04/10/2017 04:41 PM, Chris Dent wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Matt Riedemann wrote:


This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the
flurry of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe
the minutes should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list.
I know the meeting is logged, but it can be hard to read through that
without one's eyes glazing over due to the cross-talk and locker-room
towel whipping going on.


Aw, you beat me to it. This is part of what I was going to say in
response to your earlier message. I think there are at least three
things to do, all of which you've touched on:

* Alternating the meetings, despite the issues with quorum, probably
  ought to happen. If the issues with quorum are insurmountable that
  may say something important about the TC's choice to be dependent
  on IRC meetings. Is it habit? Doesn't most of the real voting
  happen in gerrit? Can more of the discussion happen in email? I
  think we (by we I mean all of OpenStack) can and should rely on
  email more than we do expressly for the purpose of enabling people
  to include themselves according to their own schedules and their
  own speeds of comprehension.


Oh god. I feel like I'm going to start a vi-vs-emacs here ...

(Before I do - I agree with alternating meetings)

Email has similar but opposite problems- in that in email the lag is 
often too long, rather than too short. This can lead to:


- person A says a thing, then goes to sleep, because it's 1AM in their 
timezone.
- 1000 people start a flame war based on a poor choice of phrase in the 
original email while person A sleeps
- person A wakes up and is horrified to see what their simple sentence 
has done, begins day drinking


Now, as you might imagine the specifics might vary slightly - but I say 
the above to actually suggest that rather than it being an either/or - 
_both_ are important, and must be balanced over time.


Email allows someone to compose an actual structured narrative, and for 
replies to do the same. Some of us are loquatious and I imagine can be 
hard to follow even with time to read.


IRC allows someone to respond quickly, and for someone to be like "yo, 
totes sorry, I didn't mean that at all LOL" and to walk things back 
before a pile of people become mortally insulted.


Like now - hopefully you'll give me a smiley in IRC ... but you might 
not, and I'm stuck worrying that my tone came across wrong. Then if you 
just don't respond because ZOMG-EMAIL, I might start day drinking.



  Email and writing in general is by no means a panacea. We don't
  want any of email, IRC, voice or expensive international
  gatherings to be the sole mode of interaction.


Blast. I argued against the first part of your email before I realized 
there was a second part that agreed with me already.



* People who are participating in the TC meetings can be much more
  considerate, at least during critical parts of the meeting, about
  who has the speaking stick and what the current topic happens to
  be. Sometimes the cross-talk and the towel whipping is exactly
  what needs to be happening, but much of the time it is not and
  makes it all very hard to follow and frustrating. We see a lot of
  behavior in the channel that if we were in person or on the phone
  would be completely unacceptable. Each communication medium
  affords different behaviors, but we still want to manage to
  understand one another. As you say, Alex does a great job of
  making the nova api subteam meeting work so there's probably
  something we can learn from there.


While I'm blathering - I'll just go ahead and apologize for my frequent 
distribution of pies, wet animals and other similar virtual gifts. I do 
have a problem shutting my mouth, even when I'm not using it. If it's 
any consolation, I also make inopportune jokes in serious business 
meetings in person too.



* Digested minutes of the meeting and any pending business
  in gerrit can give an additional way to stay in the loop but they
  are more about providing an invitation or encouragement to
  participate. It shouldn't be a substitute that's there because the
  real grind of participation is inaccessible. Participation needs
  to be more accessible.


+1000

At the heart of all of this I could not possibly be more in support of 
making all of these things accessible.



__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Jay Pipes

On 04/10/2017 02:26 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

If there was ONE thing, one initiative, one change you will
actively push in the six months between this election round and the
next, what would it be ?


Just one? If I had to choose, I would like to see a clear separation
between the core services that provide IaaS, and the products that
then build on that core. They occupy very different places in the
OpenStack picture, and should be treated differently.


Agreed.

>  The IaaS parts

(and yes, I know that just which parts these are is a whole debate in
itself) should be rock-solid, slow-moving, and, well, boring.


A fine idea. Unfortunately, what the majority of end users keep asking 
for is yet more features, especially features that expose more and more 
internals of the infrastructure and hardware to the power user (admin or 
orchestrator).



Reliability is the key for them. But for the services and
applications that are built on top of this base? I'd like to see
allowing them a much more open approach: let them develop in whatever
language they like, release when they feel the timing is right, and
define their own CI testing. In other words, if you want to develop
in a language other than Python, go for it! If you want to use a
particular NoSQL database, sure thing! However, the price of that
freedom is that the burden will be on the project to ensure that it
is adequately tested, instead of laying that responsibility on our
infra team.


This is *precisely* what the Big Tent was all about: opening up the 
"what is an OpenStack project" idea to more newcomers and competing 
implementations with the condition that the shared cross-project teams 
like docs and infra would be enablers and not doers. Instead of creating 
infrastructure for all the new project teams, the infra team would 
transition to providing guidance for how the project teams should set up 
gate jobs for themselves. Instead of writing documentation for the 
project teams, the docs team would instead provide guidance to new teams 
on how to write docs that integrate effectively with the existing docs 
tooling.


The TC and the Big Tent didn't stop Freezer from making ElasticSearch 
its only metadata storage solution. Nobody stopped Gluon and other 
projects from using etcd for control plane communication and event 
notification. And nobody should be stopping these projects from 
innovating and experimenting.


As for the Python versus other languages bit, sure, the TC took some 
time to formulate its opinion regarding the impact another language 
would have on the OpenStack shared team workload but the Big Tent and 
the structure of the TC was not an impediment to discussion of other 
languages in the OpenStack ecosystem. Rather, preference for other 
(non-Gerrit) workflows and (non-IRC) communication methods continue to 
be the primary influencing factors for non-Python projects in the cloud 
space.


> Such projects will also have to accept a tag such as

'experimental' or 'untested' until they can demonstrate otherwise.


This already exists, in a much more fine-grained fashion, as originally 
designed into the concept of the Big Tent:


https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html

Are you just recommending that the TC controls more of those tags?


This can also serve to encourage the development of additional
testing resources around, say, Golang projects, so that the Golang
community can all pitch in and develop the sort of infrastructure
needed to adequately test their products, both alone and in
conjunction with the IaaS core of OpenStack. The only thing that
should be absolute is a project's commitment to the Four Opens. There
will be winners, and there will be losers, and that's not only OK,
it's how it should be.


I'm not grasping how the above doesn't already represent the state of 
the OpenStack governance world?


Best,
-jay

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Thierry Carrez
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?

Keep track of the technical direction of OpenStack is an important part
of my role at the OpenStack Foundation. I would say I spend around a
third of my work time directly on TC matters. A significant portion of
that time is spent on duties that are linked to being the TC chair:
processing governance change requests, setting the meeting agenda,
preparing the weekly meeting, following-up on actions and handling
communications with the Board and UC.

> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

Reading everyone else's replies, I'm happy to see that a lot of complex
issues that I consider priorities are listed by other candidates. So
I'll raise something simple that wasn't mentioned yet.

I think the Technical Committee needs to be more prescriptive and clear
about what type of contributions is useful, and where they are the most
useful. We can't assume that everyone knows what is a strategic
contribution to OpenStack. We need to come up with an opinionated
help-wanted list of high-value objectives, so that everyone knows where
their contribution will make a difference. Talking with companies and
contributors from Asia, they need guidance on where to apply their
resources. An "official" list would go a long way. Giving more
recognition to the organizations and individuals helping in those
critical areas would also help. If the only yardstick you give people to
measure their contribution is Stackalytics, you get all sorts of waste
of effort. While we could afford such a waste in the past, I don't think
that's a luxury we have anymore.

-- 
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Thierry Carrez
Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to
> all TC members, or those running for a seat.
> 
> Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate
> contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
> 
> The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
> 
> I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
> adopted an alternating meeting schedule?
> 
> For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's
> already hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within
> projects and especially across the community, in large part because of
> the timezone barrier.
> 
> How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at
> least every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world
> can attend?

The current meeting time is more a consequence of the current membership
composition than a hard rule. There is, however (as you point out) much
chicken-and-egg effect at play here -- it's easier to get involved in
the TC if you can regularly attend meetings, so we can't really wait
until someone is elected to change the time.

Alternating meeting times would certainly improve the situation, but I'm
not sure they are the best solution. Personally I would rather try to
decrease our dependency on meetings. Most of the meeting time is
basically used to force attention to a set of specific proposals, and to
communicate news. A lot of the comments/questions raised and answered at
the meeting could be raised and answered directly on the reviews, and on
specific discussion threads. I don't think there is anything we do in
meetings that we could not do elsewhere in a less... synchronous
environment. Avoiding the timezone constraints, and the noisy IRC
discussion driving most non-native speakers away.

It's not an easy change though. While it's easy to just stop meeting,
the usual result is that without the regular weekly drumbeat forcing all
TC members attention to the TC matters, everything slows down to a halt.
So if we end meetings, we need to replace meetings with some other
efficient synchronization mechanism.

I'm very interested in exploring our options there. The TC meeting is
not the only one which could benefit from such an inclusive approach to
coordination.

-- 
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-11 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 10/04/17 13:52 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate 
contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.


The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.

I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC 
adopted an alternating meeting schedule?


For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's 
already hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within 
projects and especially across the community, in large part because of 
the timezone barrier.


How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at 
least every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the 
world can attend?


Glad you brought this up. John also happen to have hinted on this issue in his
reply to Thierry's question and I've brought it up quite a few times in the 
past.

I'm one of the community members affected by the time of our meetings, probably
not as bad as other members. I've been playing around with the idea of having 2
blocked slots (for alternate meetings) and only having ad-hoc meetings.

The governance process has evolved to the point where most of the discussions
can happen on the reviews themselves and there's no need for meetings for
(most?) of the changes.

Just to extend on your point about diversity, the problem with the TC meetings
is not only the time. Language is a barrier too. Some meetings are chilled but
others have a quite big amount of messages going through. This is a problem for
non native-English speakers because it's hard to follow messages coming from
other 12 members and be quick enough to read them AND reply to them before the
topic is changed. Let's not even talk about the times there are *multiple*
conversations happening.

So, yeah, one thing I've been studying for the last couple of months and that
I'd like to pursue in more depth is the idea of not having TC meetings except
for when we really need to have them and encourage other type of
collaborations/interactions between the TC members and the rest of the
community (emails, governance reviews, 1x1 conversations for mentoring/helping
some members, etc). For those cases when meetings are needed, then one of the 2
alternate times can be picked and the meeting chair will have to do moderate the
meeting in a way where focus is kept and chances are given to everyone. For the
latter we've used a "round table" model a couple of times, which IMHO worked
well enough.

I'll write a more detailed email soon(ish),
Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:40:30PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> 
> I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I
> do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns
> everything out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel
> conversations going on during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to
> follow along, or get a thought in the mix. That has to be much worse for a
> non-native English speaker.
> 
> So yeah, slow down folks. :)
> 
 Slowing down is something I never really thought of until I started getting
out and talking to contributors in non-native English speaking areas, and
I'm afraid I still haven't done a good job in the Cinder meetings of slowing
things down. I think this is a good tip for all of us!

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:16:57AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?

Starting today, I've moved from a position from where I've spent a lot of time
focused on OpenStack because that's where I've wanted to, to a position where
focusing on OpenStack _is_ my full time focus.

I'm sure the needed time will fluctuate, but I will have the time to dedicate
as needed.

> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

Communication would be my focus. Both making sure TC initiatives get
communicated out to project teams, as well as trying to open communication
out to communities outside of OpenStack.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your answers !
> 
> -- 
> 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

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Joshua Hesketh
Howdy,

To answer the original question, if elected, I should be able to commit at
least a few hours per day to the TC (if not more). I can also be quite
elastic in this being able to spend more time some weeks than others as the
role dictates.

My timezone is UTC+10 which makes the meetings at 6am. While not ideal I
can attend these meetings. I do, however, agree with the general discussion
about ensuring the meetings are accessible to all and would support an
alternating meeting time to make it easier for others to participate.

If elected to the TC I would like to help focus on strengthening our
engagement with neighbouring communities. To do this we need to solidify
our vision so that we better understand what role we play in the open cloud
world and how we can both leverage other projects and also give them a
platform to build upon. I want to see the core services continue to become
more stable and consistent to allow other applications, not even
necessarily within the OpenStack ecosystem, to build upon them. I am
excited by the draft version of the vision that has been set forward and I
want to do what I can to help us work towards that.

Cheers,
Josh

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations
> and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit
> better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic
> question on available time and top priority.
>
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
> responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
> it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
> Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
> or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
> is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
> through the governance process.
>
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your answers !
>
> --
> 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
>
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread joehuang
> When there are topics with a lot of people clamoring to talk, Thierry usually 
> lets people speak in order of "raising 
> their hand". This reduces cross-talk and lets everyone get their turn to 
> state what's on their mind. 

+1, impressive for the "raising their hand" in TC weekly IRC meeting :), 
especially  during Tricircle's big-tent application discussion.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Ed Leafe [e...@leafe.com]
Sent: 11 April 2017 5:40
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

On Apr 10, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I 
> do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns everything 
> out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel conversations going on 
> during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to follow along, or get a 
> thought in the mix. That has to be much worse for a non-native English 
> speaker.
>
> So yeah, slow down folks. :)

When there are topics with a lot of people clamoring to talk, Thierry usually 
lets people speak in order of "raising their hand". This reduces cross-talk and 
lets everyone get their turn to state what's on their mind. Normally, though, 
it is a bit of an acquired skill to be able to follow along.

-- Ed Leafe






__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Amrith Kumar


> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mriede...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:41 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority
> 
> On 4/10/2017 2:55 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> >
> > The TC meetings are held in IRC and that may somewhat mitigate the
> > issue for non-native English speakers, but I've had problems myself
> > keeping up at times with the flurry of comments.  In any case, I think
> > it would be good to include language in the pile of concerns over
> > world-wide participation
> 
> I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I
> do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns everything
> out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel conversations going on
> during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to follow along, or get a
> thought in the mix. That has to be much worse for a non-native English
> speaker.
> 
> So yeah, slow down folks. :)

[Amrith Kumar] A huge +1000 to that. I have found it very hard to follow the 
conversations of the TC and some months back (may be over a year back) there 
was a meeting where someone had to explicitly ask for people to stop the 
wisecracking. Just unwinding the multiple conversations from last week's 
meeting where I was trying to have parallel conversations with several people 
on a proposal I had before the meeting was very challenging. The challenge this 
must face for people who don't natively think in English is something I can 
hardly imagine.

It may not be a bad idea to have TC meetings be moderated and where people who 
wish to speak must be recognized and the floor yielded to them. It will be 
different, but I think it can work.

> 
> I'm not advocating splitting the meetings though. It's possible to have your
> cake and eat it to if done properly. For example, Alex Xu runs the Nova API
> subteam meeting and we have people from China, India, Japan, UK and USA and
> get through it fine, but it does involve slowing down to get an
> acknowledgement from people that they are OK with any decisions being made.
> 

[Amrith Kumar] I think the answer lies more in having the discussions in mail, 
on the mailing list and reserving the TC meeting for the actual vote. By 
framing the meeting more as a procedural mechanism, one can even allow for 
offline voting and then the time of the meeting becomes less important.

To be truly welcoming of a distributed community, I think this approach would 
be way better.

> This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the flurry
> of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe the minutes
> should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list. I know the meeting
> is logged, but it can be hard to read through that without one's eyes glazing
> over due to the cross-talk and locker-room towel whipping going on.
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt
> 
> __
> 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

--
Amrith Kumar


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Ed Leafe
On Apr 10, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> 
> I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, when I 
> do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just drowns everything 
> out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel conversations going on 
> during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating to follow along, or get a 
> thought in the mix. That has to be much worse for a non-native English 
> speaker.
> 
> So yeah, slow down folks. :)

When there are topics with a lot of people clamoring to talk, Thierry usually 
lets people speak in order of "raising their hand". This reduces cross-talk and 
lets everyone get their turn to state what's on their mind. Normally, though, 
it is a bit of an acquired skill to be able to follow along.

-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Chris Dent

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Matt Riedemann wrote:

This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the flurry 
of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe the minutes 
should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list. I know the meeting 
is logged, but it can be hard to read through that without one's eyes glazing 
over due to the cross-talk and locker-room towel whipping going on.


Aw, you beat me to it. This is part of what I was going to say in
response to your earlier message. I think there are at least three
things to do, all of which you've touched on:

* Alternating the meetings, despite the issues with quorum, probably
  ought to happen. If the issues with quorum are insurmountable that
  may say something important about the TC's choice to be dependent
  on IRC meetings. Is it habit? Doesn't most of the real voting
  happen in gerrit? Can more of the discussion happen in email? I
  think we (by we I mean all of OpenStack) can and should rely on
  email more than we do expressly for the purpose of enabling people
  to include themselves according to their own schedules and their
  own speeds of comprehension.

  Email and writing in general is by no means a panacea. We don't
  want any of email, IRC, voice or expensive international
  gatherings to be the sole mode of interaction.

* People who are participating in the TC meetings can be much more
  considerate, at least during critical parts of the meeting, about
  who has the speaking stick and what the current topic happens to
  be. Sometimes the cross-talk and the towel whipping is exactly
  what needs to be happening, but much of the time it is not and
  makes it all very hard to follow and frustrating. We see a lot of
  behavior in the channel that if we were in person or on the phone
  would be completely unacceptable. Each communication medium
  affords different behaviors, but we still want to manage to
  understand one another. As you say, Alex does a great job of
  making the nova api subteam meeting work so there's probably
  something we can learn from there.

* Digested minutes of the meeting and any pending business
  in gerrit can give an additional way to stay in the loop but they
  are more about providing an invitation or encouragement to
  participate. It shouldn't be a substitute that's there because the
  real grind of participation is inaccessible. Participation needs
  to be more accessible.

--
Chris Dent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯   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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Matt Riedemann

On 4/10/2017 2:55 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:


The TC meetings are held in IRC and that may somewhat mitigate the
issue for non-native English speakers, but I've had problems myself
keeping up at times with the flurry of comments.  In any case, I think
it would be good to include language in the pile of concerns over
world-wide participation


I don't attend many TC meetings, it's usually on accident, but yeah, 
when I do I always note the flurry of cross-talk chatter that just 
drowns everything out. I feel like there are usually at least 3 parallel 
conversations going on during a TC meeting and it's pretty frustrating 
to follow along, or get a thought in the mix. That has to be much worse 
for a non-native English speaker.


So yeah, slow down folks. :)

I'm not advocating splitting the meetings though. It's possible to have 
your cake and eat it to if done properly. For example, Alex Xu runs the 
Nova API subteam meeting and we have people from China, India, Japan, UK 
and USA and get through it fine, but it does involve slowing down to get 
an acknowledgement from people that they are OK with any decisions being 
made.


This might also tie back in with what cdent was mentioning, and if the 
flurry of conversation during a TC meeting throws people off, maybe the 
minutes should be digested after the meeting in the mailing list. I know 
the meeting is logged, but it can be hard to read through that without 
one's eyes glazing over due to the cross-talk and locker-room towel 
whipping going on.


--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Monty Taylor

On 04/10/2017 01:52 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:

On 4/10/2017 1:18 PM, Chris Dent wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:


So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
proposed changes and pushing your own) ?


I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
time and energy to support that.

Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
do what's needed to do the job well.


If there was ONE thing, one
initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
this election round and the next, what would it be ?


Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
difference. But since ONE is the request:

My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.

This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.

I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
wonder if that format was too heavyweight?

I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
sharing would accrete.

What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
working to shape the future of OpenStack.



__

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



Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to
all TC members, or those running for a seat.

Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate
contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.

The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.

I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
adopted an alternating meeting schedule?

For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's
already hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within
projects and especially across the community, in large part because of
the timezone barrier.

How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at
least every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world
can attend?



I think this is a great question, and one that I believe to be 
fundamentally important.


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Dean Troyer
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at least
> every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world can
> attend?

This is something we do need to sort out. The experiences I have seen
with a number of other meetings that do the alternating time is you
mostly get attendees showing up during their 'local' time slot. This
of course is not how the TC operates, requiring a quorum, and holding
in-meeting votes at times.  I do think that my experience is not
representative of meetings attended by elected members.  Also, we
already ask our close-to-UTC-TZ members to give up evening time
(family time for many) for the meetings.  It might be worthwhile to
look at more than two times for alternation.

There is an additional question around language.  The board has seen
where some members may not be comfortable in a non-native language
meeting and may not speak up like they might otherwise.  The current
board makeup is such that regional meetings (not official board
meetings) in Chinese have become feasible and the feedback is that the
participation is much greater for those in attendance.

The TC meetings are held in IRC and that may somewhat mitigate the
issue for non-native English speakers, but I've had problems myself
keeping up at times with the flurry of comments.  In any case, I think
it would be good to include language in the pile of concerns over
world-wide participation

(I read ahead)  Dims mentions personal conversations with some backing
away from running for the TC due to the meeting time, I wonder how
much language has been a factor for others?

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread German Eichberger
Agreed but not only for the TC. I also heard privately from some contributors 
that meetings times prevent them from fully engage with a project. This is 
something where we as the TC can lead by example.

German

On 4/10/17, 3:06 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:

Matt,

I second this request. At least one person i talked to, pointed this
as a primary reason for not standing for the TC election.

Thanks,
Dims

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:18 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>>> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
>>> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
>>> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?
>>
>>
>> I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
>> attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
>> that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
>> I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
>> for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
>> time and energy to support that.
>>
>> Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
>> challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
>> do what's needed to do the job well.
>>
>>> If there was ONE thing, one
>>> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
>>> this election round and the next, what would it be ?
>>
>>
>> Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
>> matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
>> are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
>> difference. But since ONE is the request:
>>
>> My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
>> been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
>> late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
>> consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
>> variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
>> a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
>> into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
>> proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
>> to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.
>>
>> This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
>> least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
>> to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.
>>
>> I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
>> aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
>> resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
>> Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
>> weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
>> was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
>> to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
>> wonder if that format was too heavyweight?
>>
>> I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
>> think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
>> very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
>> lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
>> do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
>> something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
>> operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
>> sharing would accrete.
>>
>> What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
>> aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
>> working to shape the future of OpenStack.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
__
>> 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
>>
>
> Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to all 
TC
> members, or those running for a seat.
>
> Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate 
contributors
> in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
>
> The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
>
> I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
> adopted an alternating meeting schedule?
>
> For example, it's 4am in Beijing when 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Edward Leafe
On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> 
> How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at least 
> every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world can attend?

+1

-- Ed__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Davanum Srinivas
Matt,

I second this request. At least one person i talked to, pointed this
as a primary reason for not standing for the TC election.

Thanks,
Dims

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:18 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>>> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
>>> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
>>> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?
>>
>>
>> I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
>> attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
>> that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
>> I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
>> for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
>> time and energy to support that.
>>
>> Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
>> challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
>> do what's needed to do the job well.
>>
>>> If there was ONE thing, one
>>> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
>>> this election round and the next, what would it be ?
>>
>>
>> Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
>> matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
>> are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
>> difference. But since ONE is the request:
>>
>> My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
>> been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
>> late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
>> consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
>> variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
>> a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
>> into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
>> proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
>> to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.
>>
>> This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
>> least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
>> to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.
>>
>> I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
>> aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
>> resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
>> Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
>> weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
>> was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
>> to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
>> wonder if that format was too heavyweight?
>>
>> I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
>> think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
>> very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
>> lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
>> do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
>> something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
>> operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
>> sharing would accrete.
>>
>> What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
>> aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
>> working to shape the future of OpenStack.
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> 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
>>
>
> Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to all TC
> members, or those running for a seat.
>
> Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate contributors
> in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.
>
> The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.
>
> I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC
> adopted an alternating meeting schedule?
>
> For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's already
> hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within projects and
> especially across the community, in large part because of the timezone
> barrier.
>
> How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at least
> every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world can
> attend?
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Matt Riedemann

On 4/10/2017 1:18 PM, Chris Dent wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:


So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
proposed changes and pushing your own) ?


I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
time and energy to support that.

Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
do what's needed to do the job well.


If there was ONE thing, one
initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
this election round and the next, what would it be ?


Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
difference. But since ONE is the request:

My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.

This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.

I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
wonder if that format was too heavyweight?

I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
sharing would accrete.

What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
working to shape the future of OpenStack.



__
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



Thanks Chris. This reminded me of something I wanted to ask about, to 
all TC members, or those running for a seat.


Lots of projects have alternating meeting times to accommodate 
contributors in different time zones, especially Europe and Asia.


The weekly TC meeting, however, does not.

I have to assume this has come up before and if so, why hasn't the TC 
adopted an alternating meeting schedule?


For example, it's 4am in Beijing when the TC meeting happens. It's 
already hard to get people from Asia into leadership roles within 
projects and especially across the community, in large part because of 
the timezone barrier.


How will the TC grow a diverse membership if it's not even held, at 
least every other week, in a timezone where the other half of the world 
can attend?


--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Ed Leafe
On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?

Well, as you know I have been active with the TC for years now, even though 
I've never been elected to a position on the TC. Since so many of the issues 
that the TC deals with are important to OpenStack's future, I like to 
contribute to bettering that wherever I can. So if elected to serve on the TC, 
I would be able to focus even more of my time, going from maybe 5-10% now, to 
50% if elected.

> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

Just one? If I had to choose, I would like to see a clear separation between 
the core services that provide IaaS, and the products that then build on that 
core. They occupy very different places in the OpenStack picture, and should be 
treated differently. The IaaS parts (and yes, I know that just which parts 
these are is a whole debate in itself) should be rock-solid, slow-moving, and, 
well, boring. Reliability is the key for them. But for the services and 
applications that are built on top of this base? I'd like to see allowing them 
a much more open approach: let them develop in whatever language they like, 
release when they feel the timing is right, and define their own CI testing. In 
other words, if you want to develop in a language other than Python, go for it! 
If you want to use a particular NoSQL database, sure thing! However, the price 
of that freedom is that the burden will be on the project to ensure that it is 
adequately tested, instead of laying that responsibility on our infra team. 
Such projects will also have to accept a tag such as 'experimental' or 
'untested' until they can demonstrate otherwise. This can also serve to 
encourage the development of additional testing resources around, say, Golang 
projects, so that the Golang community can all pitch in and develop the sort of 
infrastructure needed to adequately test their products, both alone and in 
conjunction with the IaaS core of OpenStack. The only thing that should be 
absolute is a project's commitment to the Four Opens. There will be winners, 
and there will be losers, and that's not only OK, it's how it should be.


-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread German Eichberger
Hi,

I am well aware that being on the TC is a serious time commitment and that 
there is more to do than a given day has hours. So I read your question more 
about prioritizing and how I would do that. A fair part of how I prioritize 
depends on input from others. That’s why I said listening to operators, 
developers, and end users is key. This will inform where I will try to spend my 
time. As for my big initiative, I want to push my heart is with small or 
underfunded projects and making life easier for them. I don’t think this can be 
done with one big thing but rather small steps like better mentoring, 
documentation,  better visibility by inviting them to say the Forum in Boston, 
but first and foremost helping them to have a voice at the TC.  

Thanks,
German

On 4/10/17, 5:16 AM, "Thierry Carrez"  wrote:

Hi everyone,

New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations
and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit
better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic
question on available time and top priority.

All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
through the governance process.

So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
proposed changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one
initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
this election round and the next, what would it be ?

Thanks in advance for your answers !

-- 
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


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Chris Dent

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:


So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
proposed changes and pushing your own) ?


I've been regularly reviewing changes in the governance repo and
attending the weekly TC meeting for well over a year now. Increasing
that commitment to include shepherding new initiatives, either ones
I start myself or work on in concert with others, is why I'm running
for the TC and I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't think I had the
time and energy to support that.

Making a specific prediction on how much time that will take is
challenging; some weeks will take more time than others. I intend to
do what's needed to do the job well.


If there was ONE thing, one
initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
this election round and the next, what would it be ?


Just ONE initiative is difficult because from my perspective what
matters is that whatever initiatives happen to be in progress, they
are transparent, inclusive and actually make some kind of
difference. But since ONE is the request:

My hallmark complaint with the TC since I was first aware of it has
been that, often, resolutions or plans can emerge from the TC so
late in their development that engaging them in a way that allows
consideration of completely different options is hard. Hard for a
variety of reasons; one is that it can feel a bit rude to criticize
a complete seeming idea that someone clearly put a lot of effort
into. This means discussion proceeds as an evaluation of the
proposal rather than as analysis of the root causes of the problems
to be solved or the full consequences of the goals being described.

This situation has improved over the years, I think there is at
least increased awareness, and some concrete efforts to allow people
to be involved, but we can do more to make it easier and lighter.

I would prefer that the TC's constituency was more actively made
aware of pending work and ongoing debates prior to the creation of
resolutions (even if WIP) in gerrit or having big sessions at the
Forum.  One way to do this would be to follow the growing trend of
weekly newsletters and updates and do one for the TC. I recall this
was tried (in the form of blog posts, and to some extent in response
to my prompting) a while back, but didn't really take off. I
wonder if that format was too heavyweight?

I'm proud of having played a part in the newsletter trend and I
think the results for the API-WG and the placement project have been
very positive. Doing something similar for the TC -- in a
lightweight, just-the-highlights kind of way -- is something I could
do (I hope with the occasional help of the rest of the TC) and is
something I think would be useful. With luck the newsletter would
operate as a catalyst around which casual discussion and idea
sharing would accrete.

What I hope would happen as a result is that people would feel more
aware of and able to participate in the discussion and processes
working to shape the future of OpenStack.

--
Chris Dent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯   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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Dean Troyer
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

In the last six months of my abbreviated term on the TC I was able to
increase the amount of time I was able to spend on TC work, and most
of that time went toward the work for additional language supprot, and
specifically golang support with the creation of the Golang Consistent
Testing Interface.

I plan to continue that work whether I am re-elected to the TC or not.
There has been a lot of concern expressed regarding the community
impact of any alternate languages.  Specific experiences with projects
that have already been down that path (eg Horizon with Javascript)
indicate that these concerns can not be ignored.  Part of the
challenge is to not create a situation where the resulting
multi-language environment is totally foreign to any of the
communities involved.  We already have some of that problem in
OpenStack with the broader Python community (I'm looking at you, pbr),
I want to work to minimize that for the new environments and their
existing communities, but also for an OpenStack developer to feel
comfortable and for OpenStack practices to be as consistent as
possible to minimize the pain of moving among our projects.  This is a
tricky proposition but is even trickier without conscious and
intentional coordination.

Some of my other priorities for the TC include refining OpenStack's
identity and focus as we continue to adjust to our current realities.
I was excited to see the TC vision proposal released for general
comment and think this is a great opportunity to come together on
goals and ideals for our future.  Please read it if you have not
already!  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Amrith Kumar
> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:17 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List 
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations and
> actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit better.
> I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic question on
> available time and top priority.
> 
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of responsibilities
> on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that it is easy to
> overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical Committee matters, and how
> much we can push and get done in six months or one year. At the same time,
> our most efficient way to make progress is always when someone "owns" a
> particular initiative and pushes it through the governance process.
> 
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing proposed
> changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one initiative, one
> change you will actively push in the six months between this election round
> and the next, what would it be ?
> 

[Amrith Kumar] I have the (somewhat) luxury of being able to devote a 
significant portion of my time to activities of OpenStack and the technical 
committee in the new role that I will be entering into. I will therefore be 
able to devote at least 20% of my time to activities related to the technical 
committee.

The one initiative that I would drive would be to build community for projects 
that (like Trove) face a declining participation, and are facing the same 
kind(s) of challenges when it comes to the mechanics of reviewing changes, 
keeping up with the rest of OpenStack, and continuing to make forward progress 
on their own deliverables.

It will be part of my new role to establish a core group of OpenStack talent 
who will participate in a number of projects (including, of course Trove). This 
initiative is not something new for me, I've been doing this for some time now. 
I gratefully acknowledge the help I've received in this area from many in the 
community, and most of all from dims (also candidate for election to the TC 
this cycle, please also vote for him) and want to build a larger group of 
motivated contributors who are willing to take time out of their schedules and 
participate in the effort of growing the community and the leadership. I've 
been participating in the activities of the SWG (since its inception) and I see 
this not so much as an 'election campaign' but rather a continuation of what 
I've been espousing for some time now.

The success of OpenStack in its mission to be the ubiquitous cloud computing 
platform depends in large part on the vibrant community in all of the projects 
that form part of OpenStack, not just the high profile ones. For this mission 
to be fulfilled, it will be essential that this community which has been 
weakened by recent corporate redirections be rebuilt through the introduction 
of new participants and participating companies.

> Thanks in advance for your answers !
> 

[Amrith Kumar] Thanks for the question.

> --
> 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


__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 10/04/17 11:16 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Hi everyone,

New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations
and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit
better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic
question on available time and top priority.

All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
through the governance process.

So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
proposed changes and pushing your own) ?


I consider my role in the TC to be half of my work in the community. The other
half is covered by my other technical contributions. My reviews and proposed
changes on the Technical Committee tasks are as "important" (if not more,
sometimes) as my contributions to other tasks.


If there was ONE thing, one
initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
this election round and the next, what would it be ?


One thing I'd love to see happening more is to have more bridges built between
the OpenStack community and other cloud communities like CNCF. I truly believe
there's lots we can learn from each other and share. However, for us to be able
to create stable, solid, bridges, we need to think of ourselves as a single
community composed by multiple bricks. These bricks can be used as a group or
individually but they definitely cooperate between them. Make OpenStack more
"programmable/flexible".

So, to answer your question directly, I'd choose to focus on improving the
OpenStack community by taking the time to check where we are, what we are, where
we are headed, how we can there. Documenting this process, the OpenStack culture
and making sure the community is in a healthy state team/project wise. I think
this would make our existing interactions with other communities better and
it'll also help creating new ones.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread Davanum Srinivas
Thierry, Team,

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations
> and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit
> better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a basic
> question on available time and top priority.
>
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
> responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
> it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
> Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
> or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
> is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
> through the governance process.
>
> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ? If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

We need to work better with other adjacent communities. We need to
find/make a place in the new/larger eco systems that are beginning to
shape up. I'd like to focus on intersections, boundaries to improve
what's possible and put our best foot (play to our strengths) forward.
This includes Kubernetes, Golang, Containers in general. Hopefully i
can get more people interested and excited in this initiative
irrespective of whether i am on the TC or not.

Thanks,
Dims

> Thanks in advance for your answers !
>
> --
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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] [elections] Available time and top priority

2017-04-10 Thread John Garbutt
On 10 April 2017 at 10:16, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> All the candidates are top community members with a lot of
> responsibilities on their shoulders already. My experience tells me that
> it is easy to overestimate the time we can dedicate to Technical
> Committee matters, and how much we can push and get done in six months
> or one year. At the same time, our most efficient way to make progress
> is always when someone "owns" a particular initiative and pushes it
> through the governance process.

I am not productive during the TC meeting, its too late for me to
think properly. Similarly much of the travel I have had to skip
(partly due to the personal cost, more recently due to budget
constraints) feels like it has limited my involvement with the TC over
the past year. I want to help make us a more globally welcoming group.

I have found it very hard to pick TC related efforts, work out what
others are doing, what is urgent vs important. I believe the TC vision
will help with that massively.

My recent focus has been around the TC vision, and SWG efforts. More
generally, I have been looking at Nova reaching out to related
projects, like Keystone, Cinder and Neutron, and helping to break down
the silos a little. That has lead me to look at creating the VM and
Baremetal working group, getting groups of projects to get feedback
together. If it works, it might be a pattern other constellations of
projects could copy. While that is just "Nova" work, I hope to share
success and failures to help other collaboration efforts.

> So my question is the following: if elected, how much time do you think
> you'll be able to dedicate to Technical Committee affairs (reviewing
> proposed changes and pushing your own) ?

I hope to spend a minimum of 10% of my work time on TC related
efforts, regardless of being elected or not.

If elected, I hope to increase that to at least 20%.

> If there was ONE thing, one
> initiative, one change you will actively push in the six months between
> this election round and the next, what would it be ?

The TC vision.

Lets reach out to get feedback to help refine and revise the vision.
Then lets get it agreed, and start the work to make it reality.

After we have that agreed, I think my focus will turn to the feedback
loops in our community. By that I mean helping breaking down the silos
between the different groups of developers in our community, between
developers vs users, and so on. The VM & Baremetal group is my latest
push in that general direction. The long term aim being improving the
user experience for all the different users of all the various
constellations in OpenStack.

Thanks,
johnthetubaguy

__
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