Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

+1 On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Matt Jarvis wrote: > +1 > > On 4 March 2016 at 17:21, Robert Starmer wrote: > >> If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, >> then I think we've already cast the net far and wide.

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, then I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has become a name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more useable, and more functional for those who would use/deploy (and fix, update, enhance)

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

So when a user manages a discussion across a group of operators, who's input is then fed into the development teams who are developing the software, and in such a way are supporting the development cycle, would those downstream users (I'm not touching the code), not also be ATCs? The discussions

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:20:44PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: :On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: :[...] :> Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee :> and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the :> User Committee and (imho)

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

Isn't this more nuanced than simply 'upstream' and 'downstream' ? Characterising downstream as "people who help others using OpenStack, by moderating Ops meetups, by filing bugs, by answering questions on Ask, by contributing a blogpost, etc...". is an extremely broad church. My assumption about

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

On 2016-03-04 10:02:36 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > Upstream contributors are represented by the Technical Committee > and vote for it. Downstream contributors are represented by the > User Committee and (imho) should vote for it. [...] Right, this brings up the other important

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-03-03 10:41:45 -0800 (-0800), Stefano Maffulli wrote: [...] I suggest not to create a separate category, and reuse ATC. Active Technical Contributor always meant to include any contribution of technical nature, including legal, operations, documentation, user

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

ists.openstack.org>>, "commun...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:commun...@lists.openstack.org>" <commun...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:commun...@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions How about just

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

​What about 3 different groups, with every combination possible. ACC / Active Community Contributor I contribute with non-technical tasks (tasks not producing code). Example : Meetups, Summits, Ask moderation, participating in a user commitee, etc. TOC / Technical Ops Contributor I contribute to

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

How about just OPS : {$Verified_Count} Physical Nodes =D On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Robert Starmer wrote: > I setup an etherpad to try to capture this discussion: > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OperatorRecognition > > R > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Robert

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

I agree with the list of contributions that should garner value, and I really like TOC, because some folks who meet the other operators requirements may not actually _run_ OpenStack, they may "operate" on top :) On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Edgar Magana wrote: >

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:57:22PM +0100, Pierre Freund wrote: :> :> *This needs a catchy name.* :> Yes, yes it does. Suggestions? :> :​​ :Some suggestions, but I'm not a native english speaker, it might sounds not :natural. As a native (american) english speaker all these suggestions sound

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

+1 for TOC or AOC On 3 March 2016 at 15:54, Edgar Magana wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I have to admit that I really like these two: > > TOC / Technical Ops Contributor > IRO / I Run OpenStack > > Edgar > > From: Pierre Freund > Date: Thursday,

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

Hello Folks, I have to admit that I really like these two: TOC / Technical Ops Contributor IRO / I Run OpenStack Edgar From: Pierre Freund > Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:57 AM To: Edgar Magana

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

> > *This needs a catchy name.* > Yes, yes it does. Suggestions? > ​​ Some suggestions, but I'm not a native english speaker, it might sounds not natural. AOC / Active Ops Contributor ACC / Active Community Contributor TOC / Technical Ops Contributor Proud Ops POP / Proudly Operating in

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-community] Recognising Ops contributions

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Edgar Magana wrote: > We want to make this a reality by gathering a list of criteria that we as > a community feel that shows someone has demonstrated technical > contributions, using their skills as Ops. Our current ideas are as