81 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
81 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
Hi everyone,
|
|
|
|
I'd like to submit my candidacy for reelection on the Technical Committee.
|
|
For those who don't know me yet, my name is Thierry Carrez, I use "ttx" as
|
|
my IRC nickname. I'm currently employed by the OpenStack Foundation as its
|
|
Director of Engineering, which basically means I'm running the team in
|
|
charge of ensuring the long-term health of the upstream OpenStack open source
|
|
project and its governance. Handling the Technical Committee is my primary
|
|
activity: 6 months ago I left the PTL role for the Release Management Team in
|
|
order to be able to focus as much as possible on the TC.
|
|
|
|
One year ago I ran for election with the goal of having the TC "step out of
|
|
the way"[1]. The idea was to remove the TC from the critical path of getting
|
|
things done, and encourage a "ask for forgiveness, rather than permission"
|
|
attitude in our community. I like to think we were successful at this. Project
|
|
teams can now more easily add git repositories as they need them, they also
|
|
end up asserting some tags by themselves, and the TC has generally moved to
|
|
being an appeals board in case of disputes, rather than a procedural barrier
|
|
in getting things done.
|
|
|
|
Here are the three priorities for my upcoming mandate, if the electorate
|
|
chooses to reelect me to the TC:
|
|
|
|
1/ Cleaning up the big tent
|
|
|
|
The transition to the "big tent" governance model is now finished, with all
|
|
the expected projects now officially part of the OpenStack community. The
|
|
big tent is all about community: answering the "are you one of us" question.
|
|
Our approach there was to be inclusive and assume good faith, especially as
|
|
we caught up on documenting what we meant by "the OpenStack Way". Over the
|
|
past year we created the Project Team Guide[2], which clearly explains what is
|
|
expected of official project teams. I think it's time for us to look back at
|
|
all those projects we have in the tent, reach out to those who are lacking,
|
|
and not hesitate to remove the ones that are not following our common community
|
|
practices from the list of official project teams. Demoting a project used to
|
|
be particularly painful, with costly git repository renames crating disruption
|
|
on the demoted projects. But now that all projects hosted under our
|
|
infrastructure (official and unofficial) use the same namespace, this cost and
|
|
disruption are very limited, so cleaning up the big tent is now possible.
|
|
|
|
2/ Defining the limits of the big tent
|
|
|
|
The TC recently had two project team applications for which we had no good
|
|
answer: Poppy and Tacker. Those resulted in close (and somewhat arbitrary)
|
|
votes as each TC member tried to interpret the mission statement words and
|
|
what we stand for. In the case of Poppy, there was the question of whether a
|
|
service that proxies to non-OpenStack commercial services could be considered
|
|
part of "OpenStack", without an open source reference implementation to do
|
|
end-to-end testing against. In the case of Tacker, there was the question
|
|
of a service standing on top of other OpenStack services to present a
|
|
domain-specific API tailored to a specific use case or industry. Should
|
|
that still be "OpenStack", or just something that consumes OpenStack ? I'd
|
|
like the TC to take a step back and explore those two questions, without the
|
|
pressure of a specific project team addition. Clarifying the rules may result
|
|
in some official projects to be demoted to "unofficial" status as they would
|
|
not fit the rules anymore.
|
|
|
|
3/ Launching the new separated event for project team members
|
|
|
|
We recently started the discussion[3] on splitting the "design summit" into
|
|
wider community feedback / requirements-gathering sessions (that would
|
|
happen at the main Summit) and a specific event for project team members
|
|
to gather in a co-located venue to come up with a plan and organize its
|
|
execution. We still have a long way to go (and not that much time) to discuss
|
|
the format and the timing of this new event, and I expect the Newton membership
|
|
of the TC to help with taking quick decisions there. The next step here will
|
|
be a cross-project workshop at the Design Summit in Austin to discuss the
|
|
current plan and go deeper in the details.
|
|
|
|
Those are my three priorities for Newton and Ocata, and this is what I'll push
|
|
the Technical Committee towards if I'm elected.
|
|
|
|
Thank you all for your consideration !
|
|
|
|
[1] http://ttx.re/stepping-out-of-the-way.html
|
|
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/
|
|
[3] http://ttx.re/splitting-out-design-summit.html
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
|