Hi Mark,

The way we ended the discussion in the last Board meeting is that Foundation staff was going to take the next step to start looking at what the implementation of a Project Team Gathering would look like. This would help us clearly answer some of the questions that were coming up (when would it happen, what would it do to the Ocata release cycle timing, what kind of funding would be required, what kinds of venues would be appropriate). I just posted an update on some of this to the Board list earlier today, and we were planning to discuss again at the upcoming meeting on Sunday. I think it does make sense to cover it in the joint meeting with the TC and UC members, so thanks for adding it to the agenda there, Tim.

In terms of something being “pushed through as a fait accompli,” as we’ve covered in the last 2 Board meetings, this discussion has been going on seriously in the technical community for over a year now. This really accelerated in early 2016 on several openstack-dev mailing list threads with a general consensus emerging that there were quite a few benefits to adjusting the release cycle and giving the project teams additional dedicated, focused work time. As mentioned in the other thread, the first such event would be almost a year from now, so all together we’re talking about nearly two years of open discussions among multiple groups from start to implementation.

Looking forward to continuing the discussion in Austin,

Jonathan

On Apr 20, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Mark Baker <mark.baker@canonical.com> wrote:

I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that unless the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be made by the foundation team.
To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be pushed through as a fait accompli.

Best Regards


Mark Baker

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might not all be able to make the larger discussion event (https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim

On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" <mordred@inaugust.com> wrote:

>On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
>> the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
>> summit/design summit.
>>
>> When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?
>
>My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
>there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
>handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation