[OpenStack Foundation] Technical committee

Thierry Carrez thierry at openstack.org
Tue Feb 21 11:04:48 UTC 2012

Joe Heck wrote:
> I believe it is worth asserting that potential members of the Technical Committee *must* have made a commit to at least one of the OpenStack core projects, and need to have a signed a contributor's agreement. I believe this is already expected, and likely just semantics, but it's worth making it clear.
> I get that we want to drop PTL's from the committee to deal with bloat (especially as the number of core projects is increasing, making the group unwieldy in size), but I think we do want a linkage at least between being a core committers and being a Technical Committee member. So that point, I propose that the committee members should all be a core contributor on one of the core[0] OpenStack projects. I'm proposing this given the committee is intended to be a cross-project technical decision point and technical appeals board. 

I think it's a bit restrictive. I'd rather have "any technical member of
the Foundation" be a potential TC member. I.e. if you vote for the TC
composition, you should be able to run for a seat.

This goes a bit into the next discussion I wanted to have, which is
"what is a technical member of the foundation" (TM). Obviously all core
committers are TMs. But in order to not restrict "technical" to "code
contributor", my original idea was to have a Technical membership
committee (TMC) which would review the rare applications from people
contributing technically to OpenStack but who are not pure code

We'll also have to discuss how to expire membership for those who are no
longer technically active in the project.

> (Related, I believe the Docs, Tempest and OpenStack-CI projects should both be moving to become "core projects".

To avoid overloading, I'd like to keep "core" terminology to mean
"having deliverables shipped as part of a given official OpenStack
release". We'll probably need a new category ("official projects") to
have projects that are technically part of "OpenStack" but not released
in the same way as the "OpenStack product".

Then I guess we could simplify TM to mean "relatively recent committers
for any official OpenStack project", and not need a TMC at all. But
wouldn't that exclude a few technical contributors ? Think bug triagers
? But maybe encouraging them to commit is simpler than forming a
bureaucratic TMC.

Thoughts ?

Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack

More information about the Foundation mailing list