Open Stack

Moving to open list -  posting to the confidential list was more of an
accident than deliberate strategy.

Mark

On 8 Sep 2016 5:39 p.m., "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> Hi!
>
> We started with writing down the principles we currently operate under,
> because they are the principles we currently operate under but they are
> not documented anywhere. I fully expect that once they're written down
> it should give an excellent opportunity to reflect and to suggest that
> they change.
>
> However, until the existing ones are written down, it's very hard for
> anyone to challenge them or to suggest corrections to them, since they
> are basically only defined in the minds of long-timers.
>
> I believe the thing that Chris suggests is an excellent _next_ step. But
> I do not believe it can happen as a first step, as there is not a clear
> shared understanding of where we are today.
>
> These are not new principles. They are the current state of the world
> for the existing technical leadership - and they have been this way for
> years. If any of them are surprising to anyone, then it's even more
> important that we write them down so that we can discuss them. I would
> posit that many of our misunderstandings over the last few years can
> likely be tracked down to a lack of a shared understanding of some core
> principle, but lacking anything to point to, it's been very hard to have
> the discussion about whether a particular choice is in line with them -
> or even whether we've learned something new about the world and we
> should change some of our fundamental assumptions.
>
> Also, I do not see any reason that this thread, should it continue,
> should be on the confidential list. I did not change the list it's going
> to because I did not start the thread... but I would recommend that
> perhaps we do this on the open list instead.
>
> Monty
>
> On 09/08/2016 10:17 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> > If you haven't seen this thread below on OpenStack-dev then please take
> > a min to look through as I think it directly relates to the question
> > discussed on the most recent board call of "what is OpenStack".
> >
> > TL;DR: There a proposal in the OpenStack Governance project to write
> > down the principles under which the OpenStack Community operates. The
> > proposal is to be put to the TC and perhaps (it isn't clear to me yet)
> > the Board.
> >
> > I agree with some of the commentary raised in the thread that this
> > shouldn't be an exercise in writing down what community members believe
> > to be the guiding principles of OpenStack that thy operate under. It is
> > an opportunity for us to state with more clarity how the community
> > operates which itself is very much a function of what OpenStack is today
> > and strives to be in the future.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> >
> > Mark Baker
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: *Chris Dent* <cdent+os at anticdent.org
> > <mailto:cdent%2Bos at anticdent.org>>
> > Date: 8 September 2016 at 12:18
> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write
> > down OpenStack principles
> > To: OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > There's a governance proposal in progress at
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/
> > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/> that I think is worth a
> > visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
> > OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.
> >
> > I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
> > project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
> > been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
> > assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
> > what we get up to.
> >
> > At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
> > interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
> > preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
> > engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
> > I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.
> >
> > The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
> > what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
> > agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
> > that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
> > obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
> > the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].
> >
> > I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
> > much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
> > do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
> > the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
> > talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
> > going well.
> >
> > [1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
> > about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
> > authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
> > discussion in the present day.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Dent               ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)        https://anticdent.org/
> > freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent
> > ____________________________________________________________
______________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foundation-board-confidential mailing list
> > Foundation-board-confidential at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
foundation-board-confidential
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board-confidential mailing list
> Foundation-board-confidential at lists.openstack.org
<Foundation-board-confidential at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
foundation-board-confidential
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board-confidential>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20160908/88094cb2/attachment.html>