c192b39d16
Change-Id: Idf2a8c72041e300c10319ef010b251e4b1c9ad50
125 lines
5.8 KiB
ReStructuredText
125 lines
5.8 KiB
ReStructuredText
===============================================
|
|
2017-04-25 Replace Technical Committee meetings
|
|
===============================================
|
|
|
|
The Technical Committee meetings have become a barrier for some folks in the
|
|
community (TC and non-TC members) to participate in some discussions. Below is a
|
|
list with some positive and negative aspects of the current format:
|
|
|
|
Positive aspects of the current format:
|
|
|
|
* A quorum of the TC is required to hold the meeting
|
|
* The meeting agenda is a reasonable concise summary of what the TC is doing
|
|
* The IRC logs of the meeting, read alongside Gerrit, are a reasonable
|
|
record of the debate
|
|
* The meeting can be a quick way to reach out to members of the TC to discuss
|
|
how to move a particular proposal or idea forward.
|
|
* The meeting is used to make time to resolve disagreements and build
|
|
consensus around the particular topics that need progressing.
|
|
* The meeting provides a weekly rhythm that forces TC members to regularly pay
|
|
attention to TC initiatives, and therefore keeps efforts progressing.
|
|
* It's a known time when other parts of the community can show up and interact
|
|
with the TC
|
|
|
|
Negative aspects of the current format:
|
|
|
|
* It takes place a specific time of day, even if we have rotating time slots,
|
|
we are always excluding someone.
|
|
* The fast paced nature of the IRC meetings can exclude many for the
|
|
conversation. Many native English speakers struggle to keep track of the
|
|
conversation and get their point across. It is even worse for non-native
|
|
English speakers.
|
|
* Feels like many conversations happen outside the meeting in non-open ways,
|
|
we should make it easy to have more open conversations.
|
|
|
|
All of this is fighting the goals laid out in the TC 2019 vision around
|
|
diversity of OpenStack leadership and in particular in the TC. We must
|
|
do better.
|
|
|
|
Global Sensitivity
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
As we quickly evolve our process, we need to be mindful of the challenges
|
|
non-native English speakers and teams spread across the globe. Success is
|
|
when all in our community feel able to contribute to the best of their
|
|
ability within our community.
|
|
|
|
Keeping a rhythm
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
The weekly meeting gives us a good regular cadence to keep progress moving
|
|
forward. When we lose the regular meeting, we really need to keep this
|
|
cadence. This should not be merely be a summary of what has happened, but
|
|
rather should include a call to action and priority setting, much like the
|
|
existing meeting agenda that is sent 24 hours before the current meeting.
|
|
|
|
The TC chair will be responsible for sending a weekly status update to the
|
|
development mailing list, which includes:
|
|
|
|
* Highlights of what the TC has got done over the last week
|
|
* Gerrit patches and email threads that need attention over the coming week
|
|
* List of reviews that have enough support to be merged. They will be merged
|
|
after a 48 hour period of waiting for any final objections. This can be
|
|
accelerated, as normal, using the existing house rules.
|
|
|
|
It is likely the above will be built in a collaborative way using tools such
|
|
as gerrit, wiki pages and etherpads that track the TC's work.
|
|
|
|
When needing to discuss and debate what is currently the highest priority,
|
|
replying to the weekly checkpoint email can be a good starting point for
|
|
that debate.
|
|
|
|
Office hours
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The weekly meeting is a good time for non-TC members to interact with TC
|
|
members. However the timing is very poor for many members of the community.
|
|
We can replace this part of the weekly meeting with office hours.
|
|
|
|
Schedule a set of slots so there are current members of the TC present in the
|
|
#openstack-tc IRC channel and there is a good time for folks from any timezone
|
|
to drop in and ask questions.
|
|
|
|
Debating
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
Currently, the weekly meeting is used to debate topics that are currently
|
|
in review and possibly close to getting merged. Doing this in the meeting
|
|
makes it clear when something will be debated so people can join in that
|
|
debate, and the debate is clearly recorded in the meeting logs.
|
|
|
|
Using the current meeting format and agendas for debate artificially limits the
|
|
bandwidth to what can be agreed within one hour a week. Losing this restriction
|
|
should allow for much higher bandwidth, if we are successful.
|
|
|
|
While email and gerrit conversations provide a good asynchronous mechanism to
|
|
debate, sometimes it is more efficient to have a synchronous conversation to
|
|
build understanding and consensus on a particular topic. Therefore, In case of
|
|
standing disagreements on some topics, the TC chair can call for a meeting to
|
|
discuss that specific topic. The meeting would be chaired by the TC chair or any
|
|
other member of the TC (hopefully neutral on the topic).
|
|
|
|
Any synchronous conversation (be they ad-hoc or during office hours) should be
|
|
summarised on the relevant gerrit review, or if not available, the relevant ML
|
|
thread. If the debated happened on IRC, a link to the IRC logs must be included.
|
|
These ad-hoc conversations should happen in logged mediums that can be easily
|
|
referenced in the summaries that will be provided.
|
|
|
|
Every decision should happen on asynchronous means, following the voting
|
|
process, regardless of whether there was a synchronous discussion or not.
|
|
|
|
Shared Language
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
As things are debated in the current IRC meeting, we often go off track
|
|
and discover interesting things that need to be defined for us to make
|
|
progress. Such as what do we mean by "upstream support", or what do we
|
|
mean by "deprecated". With tags and resolutions we can build up this
|
|
common set of definitions, so we all start talking about the same thing.
|
|
|
|
This free flowing conversation should be continued even without the regular
|
|
weekly meetings. Adhoc IRC conversations are likely to lead to interesting
|
|
ideas that should be debated more formally in their own right.
|
|
We have succeeded if we continue to refine our shared language in a way
|
|
that makes it easier to join in the debates.
|