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

[Silence Dogood]

+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. 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) it.  And somehow that's been connected to touching the
>> codebase directly.  This implies that an architectural discussion that
>> changes OpenStack, but doesn't initiate a code change is not an ATC worthy
>> event.
>>
>> So let's fix this, and if a proposal is needed how about:
>>
>> Active Technical Contributions are those that improve OpenStack either
>> directly by impacting the code base, or indirectly by making OpenStack
>> useable.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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) should vote for it.
>>> :[...]
>>> :
>>> :Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The
>>> :purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
>>> :for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
>>> :all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
>>> :important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
>>> :hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
>>> :upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
>>> :directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
>>> :least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
>>> :all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
>>> :User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
>>> :users).
>>>
>>> At the risk of drifting off topic that concern "letting all of
>>> OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the User
>>> Committee (UC)" is largely why the UC hasn't expanded to include
>>> elected positions.
>>>
>>> As currently written bylaws define the UC as 3 appointed positions. !
>>> appointed by TC one by the board and the third by thte other two (FYI
>>> I'm currently sitting in the TC apointed seat).  The by laws further
>>> allow the UC to add seats elected by all foundation members.  In
>>> Tokyo summit sessions where expantion was discussed the consensus was
>>> to encourage more volunteer participation but not to add more formal
>>> seats because there was no way to properly define the voting
>>> constituency. Personally I can see both sides of that argument, but
>>> the sense of the room was not to add elected positions untill we can
>>> better deifne the constituency (that discussion could be reopened but
>>> if you'd like to do so please start a new thread)
>>>
>>> Perhaps nailing down this definition for recognition can actually have
>>> broader implications and help to define who elects the UC.  It would
>>> take a by-law change of course, but atleast we'd actually have a good
>>> proposal (which we currently don't).
>>>
>>> -Jon
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>>
>
> DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Robert Starmer]

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)
it.  And somehow that's been connected to touching the codebase directly.
This implies that an architectural discussion that changes OpenStack, but
doesn't initiate a code change is not an ATC worthy event.

So let's fix this, and if a proposal is needed how about:

Active Technical Contributions are those that improve OpenStack either
directly by impacting the code base, or indirectly by making OpenStack
useable.

Robert

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx  wrote:

> 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) should vote for it.
> :[...]
> :
> :Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The
> :purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
> :for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
> :all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
> :important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
> :hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
> :upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
> :directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
> :least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
> :all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
> :User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
> :users).
>
> At the risk of drifting off topic that concern "letting all of
> OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the User
> Committee (UC)" is largely why the UC hasn't expanded to include
> elected positions.
>
> As currently written bylaws define the UC as 3 appointed positions. !
> appointed by TC one by the board and the third by thte other two (FYI
> I'm currently sitting in the TC apointed seat).  The by laws further
> allow the UC to add seats elected by all foundation members.  In
> Tokyo summit sessions where expantion was discussed the consensus was
> to encourage more volunteer participation but not to add more formal
> seats because there was no way to properly define the voting
> constituency. Personally I can see both sides of that argument, but
> the sense of the room was not to add elected positions untill we can
> better deifne the constituency (that discussion could be reopened but
> if you'd like to do so please start a new thread)
>
> Perhaps nailing down this definition for recognition can actually have
> broader implications and help to define who elects the UC.  It would
> take a by-law change of course, but atleast we'd actually have a good
> proposal (which we currently don't).
>
> -Jon
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Robert Starmer]

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 are technical, they are active, and they are hopefully
contributing to the codebase.  But the venue, and resources involved are
clearly users.

How do you differentiate that.

But I'll also say, we are now _way_ off topic.  The point that drove a lot
of this discussion wasn't wether Ops should get ATC (perhaps needs a
separate thread, as I believe strongly that they should), but wether there
was a model by which the downstream users could be recognized for their
contributions to making OpenStack functional.  Hence the concept that
perhaps for now, it makes sense to have a different title, and still allow
folks to go to conferences where they can continue to engage with the
community, at a technical level, to further all of our goals at growing
OpenStack.

I still think we should go with TOC/IRO/ACC or whatever, and discuss what a
technical contribution might be separately.

Robert



On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:

> On 2016-03-04 16:34:27 +0200 (+0200), Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> [...]
> > By saying that someone who contributes to OpenStack - but doing so by
> > not writing code are not entitled to any technical say in what
> > directions OpenStack should pursue or how OpenStack should be governed,
> > is IMHO a weird (to put it nicely) perception of equality.
> [...]
>
> Conversely, you're arguing for an expansion of scope for the TC. Its
> charter right now gives it power to govern the activities of the
> groups which produce the software and documentation which make up
> OpenStack. We have a separate governing body, the UC, which is
> intended to represent the people who deploy, run and interact with
> OpenStack software. Are you saying the UC should be dissolved and
> everyone it formerly represented should come under the jurisdiction
> of the TC? Or that we should all be represented by both the TC and
> UC no matter what our involvement with the OpenStack
> community/ecosystem might be? Or something else entirely?
>
> Governance in OpenStack is a two-way street, and the people whose
> actions are governed choose who governs those actions. Any increase
> in scope of possible voters is an equal increase in scope for the
> body governing them, and I don't personally think we should hand the
> TC additional jurisdiction outside its present charter.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Jonathan Proulx]

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) should vote for it.
:[...]
:
:Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The
:purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
:for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
:all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
:important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
:hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
:upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
:directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
:least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
:all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
:User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
:users).

At the risk of drifting off topic that concern "letting all of
OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the User
Committee (UC)" is largely why the UC hasn't expanded to include
elected positions.

As currently written bylaws define the UC as 3 appointed positions. !
appointed by TC one by the board and the third by thte other two (FYI
I'm currently sitting in the TC apointed seat).  The by laws further
allow the UC to add seats elected by all foundation members.  In
Tokyo summit sessions where expantion was discussed the consensus was
to encourage more volunteer participation but not to add more formal
seats because there was no way to properly define the voting
constituency. Personally I can see both sides of that argument, but
the sense of the room was not to add elected positions untill we can
better deifne the constituency (that discussion could be reopened but
if you'd like to do so please start a new thread)

Perhaps nailing down this definition for recognition can actually have
broader implications and help to define who elects the UC.  It would
take a by-law change of course, but atleast we'd actually have a good
proposal (which we currently don't).

-Jon

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Matt Jarvis]

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 this whole thread was that the point of it was to try
and recognise the operators in the middle of these two groups - who are
contributing to technical direction through active participation in ops
events, providing feedback and testing for features, contributing to the
ops codebase through osops etc. etc. etc.



On 4 March 2016 at 14:34, Maish Saidel-Keesing  wrote:

>
>
> On 03/04/16 14:20, 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) should vote for it.
> > [...]
> >
> > Right, this brings up the other important point I meant to make. The
> > purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
> > for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
> > all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
> > important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
> > hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
> > upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
> > directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
> > least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
> > all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
> > User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
> > users).
> I have been following this as a silent bystander for a while - and we
> have come full circle. And again here we bring up an old issue.
>
> (And forgive me Jeremy that you were the one whose mail triggered my
> response - this is not directed at you personally, or any specific
> person - but the OpenStack Community as a whole)
>
> Should ops contributors be accepted as ATC's?
>
> I have been saying this for a while - and I will continue singing this
> song for as long as I can - hopefully until someone listens.
>
> Operator contributions to OpenStack are no less important or no less
> equal than that of anyone writing code or translating UI's or writing
> documentation.
>
> By saying that someone who contributes to OpenStack - but doing so by
> not writing code are not entitled to any technical say in what
> directions OpenStack should pursue or how OpenStack should be governed,
> is IMHO a weird (to put it nicely) perception of equality.
>
> > I worry that "ATC means I get into events for free" is conflating
> > two completely incidental factors and causes focus on the wrong
> > issues. Let's figure out how to get the community better involved in
> > these events, but making everyone an "ATC" isn't really the solution
> > to that problem.
> So I see two options.
>
> 1. Ops Contributors are considered Active Technical Contributors - just
> the same as anyone writing code - or fixing a spelling mistake in
> documentation (and yes submitting a patch to correct a typo in a
> document - does give you ATC status). Their contributions are just as
> important to the success of the community as anyone else.
>
> or
>
> 2. Give Ops contributors a different status (whatever the name may be) -
> and change the governance laws to allow these people with this status a
> voting right in the Technical committee. They have as much right as any
> other contributor to cast their opinion on how the TC should govern and
> what direction it should choose.
>
> By alienating Operators (and yes it is harsh word - but that is the
> feeling that many Operators - me included - have at the moment) from
> having a say in - how OpenStack should run, what release cycles should
> be - what the other side of the fence is experiencing each and every day
> due to problems in OpenStack's past and possible potential trouble with
> the future - reminds me of a time in the not so far back history where
> not all men/women were equal.
>
> Where some were allowed to vote, and others not - they were told that
> others could decide for them - because those others knew what was best.
>
> *Forgive the rant.*
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Maish Saidel-Keesing
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Jeremy Stanley]

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 point I meant to make. The
purpose of the "ATC" designation is to figure out who gets to vote
for the Technical Committee, as a form of self-governance. That's
all, but it's very important (in my opinion, far, far, far more
important than some look-at-me status on a conference badge or a
hand-out on free admission to an event). Granting votes for the
upstream technical governing body to people who aren't involved
directly in upstream technology decisions makes little sense, or at
least causes it to cease being self-governance (as much as letting
all of OpenStack's software developers decide who should run the
User Committee would make it no longer well represent downstream
users).

I worry that "ATC means I get into events for free" is conflating
two completely incidental factors and causes focus on the wrong
issues. Let's figure out how to get the community better involved in
these events, but making everyone an "ATC" isn't really the solution
to that problem.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Thierry Carrez]

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
stories, etc. Creating a new name risks TLA proliferation (it's a
thing) and exacerbate the "us vs them" that already exists. ATCs
would already know that they are operators, doc writers, UX
experts, marketers, translators, developers, laywers etc and all
have their own venues to meet and discuss among their peers.


I agree that we should use a common contributor term for all of
them (inclusivity is important and we're all one community), but I
actually disagree with our current use of "ATC" for this at all
because it's a term defined in the foundation bylaws and, while the
people who have "ATC" on their badges and get free conference
admission are a _subset_ of the ATC definition in the bylaws, who
gets free admission is decided by the conference coordinators on an
event-by-event basis and often does not extend to _all_ official
ATCs (for example, people with contributions in the prior cycle but
not the current cycle are officially ATC but don't get free
admission for that).


Yeah, we can't really overload ATC because this is defined and used in 
governance. I'd rather call all of us "contributors".


There are "upstream" contributors (people who author changes to the 
various git repositories that make up OpenStack), and "downstream" 
contributors (people who help others using OpenStack, by moderating Ops 
meetups, by filing bugs, by answering questions on Ask, by contributing 
a blogpost, etc...). Some people contribute both upstream and 
downstream. 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.


If any perks are associated to contribution, they should apply equally 
to upstream and downstream contributors, because both aspects are 
equally important.


--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Tim Bell]

From: Matt Joyce <m...@nycresistor.com<mailto:m...@nycresistor.com>>
Date: Thursday 3 March 2016 at 18:35
To: Robert Starmer <rob...@kumul.us<mailto:rob...@kumul.us>>
Cc: openstack-operators 
<openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.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 OPS : {$Verified_Count} Physical Nodes

=D

It would make visits to the Marketplace interesting…. Wandering around with a 
badge with the number of nodes would certainly get vendor attention :-)

Overall, I’d like to be sure we cater for non-Ops contributions also. There are 
consumers of clouds to factor into the discussion and i’d like to see something 
where a contributor to the foundation application catalog gets credit or an ISV 
in the marketplace.

Tim


On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Robert Starmer 
<rob...@kumul.us<mailto:rob...@kumul.us>> 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 Starmer 
<rob...@kumul.us<mailto:rob...@kumul.us>> wrote:
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 
<edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>> 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 <pierre.fre...@osones.com<mailto:pierre.fre...@osones.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:57 AM
To: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>
Cc: 
"openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>"
 
<openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>>,
 "commun...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:commun...@lists.openstack.org>" 
<commun...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:commun...@lists.openstack.org>>, 
"Jonathan D. Proulx" <j...@csail.mit.edu<mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu>>, Shilla 
Saebi <shilla.sa...@gmail.com<mailto:shilla.sa...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [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 Production
IRO / I Run OpenStack

--
Pierre F
​reund​

___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators




___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Pierre Freund]

​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 the Ops part, with code or tasks with mesureable metrics.
Example : Filing a detailed bug, tagged 'ops' that gets fixed, tasks
measurable in launchpad for exemple.

ADC / Active Development Contributor
The actual ATC.

And depending of what I do, I can have a ACC-TOC pass, or a ACC-ADC pass,
every combination...
And if I have one of these, I'm an AC (Active Contributor).​

This email is at the end of the etherpad.

-- 
Pierre FREUND
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Silence Dogood]

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 Starmer  wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>>> 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 
>>> Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
>>> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>, "commun...@lists.openstack.org"
>>> , "Jonathan D. Proulx" ,
>>> Shilla Saebi 
>>> Subject: Re: [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 Production
>>> IRO / I Run OpenStack
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pierre F
>>> ​reund​
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Robert Starmer]

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:

> 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 
> Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>, "commun...@lists.openstack.org"
> , "Jonathan D. Proulx" ,
> Shilla Saebi 
> Subject: Re: [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 Production
> IRO / I Run OpenStack
>
> --
> Pierre F
> ​reund​
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Jonathan Proulx]

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
natural to me.

:AOC / Active Ops Contributor
:ACC / Active Community Contributor
:TOC / Technical Ops Contributor
:Proud Ops
:POP / Proudly Operating in Production
:IRO / I Run OpenStack


I was also thinking AOC since it mirrrors the existing ATC well.

ACC is also a good choice, though it implies a broader definition.  I
do think all active contibutors to the community should be
recognized.  It may be better to make the recoginitions more
specific.  For example ATC are also members of the community and are
clearly contributing so ACC could be seen to overlap with that.  If we
want to expand recognition beyond "Ops" perhaps we should add
desigantions?

-Jon



___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Matt Jarvis]

+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, March 3, 2016 at 6:57 AM
> To: Edgar Magana 
> Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>, "commun...@lists.openstack.org"
> , "Jonathan D. Proulx" ,
> Shilla Saebi 
> Subject: Re: [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 Production
> IRO / I Run OpenStack
>
> --
> Pierre F
> ​reund​
>
> ___
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>

-- 
DataCentred Limited registered in England and Wales no. 05611763
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Edgar Magana]

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 >
Cc: 
"openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org"
 
>,
 "commun...@lists.openstack.org" 
>, 
"Jonathan D. Proulx" >, Shilla 
Saebi >
Subject: Re: [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 Production
IRO / I Run OpenStack

--
Pierre F
​reund​
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[Pierre Freund]

>
> *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 Production
IRO / I Run OpenStack

-- 
Pierre F
​reund​
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

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

[David Medberry]

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 follows:
>
>- Moderating a session at an Ops meetup
>- Filing a detailed bug, tagged 'ops', that gets fixed
>- Filling out the user survey (including a deployment)
>- Making contributions to ops-tags and/or OSOps repositories
>- Being an active moderator on Ask OpenStack
>- Actively participating in a user commitee working group
>- Contributing a post to Superuser magazine
>- Giving a presentation or track chairing for the Operations track at
>the conference
>- Hosting OpenStack Meetups
>
> Here's what we would like to happen:
>
>1. We discuss and converge on these initial criteria and make a list
>of eligible members
>2. If we can pull this off in time, we've arranged to get some kind of
>mention of the status on your conference badge in Austin
>3. Assess how it goes for Austin and the six month period that
>follows, then iterate to success, including offering ATC-similar
>registration codes at the Barcelona summit
>
> We are really looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
> Kind Regards,
> The OpenStack User Committee.
>

Off the top of my head, the one thing I see missing from this is more of
the influencing upstream (ie, participating in a serivce/project mid-cycle.
However, of the people I know personally that have done this, they also
meet many if not all of the other critieria. And of course, I'm unsure of
how to state that properly
 * Participated in a project sprint (or something like that.)
___
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators