Open Stack

Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>> What sorts of input would the board be interested in hearing? Are there
>> specific questions, or is it more a matter of looking for general
>> comments?
> 
> I’d love to have any of the board members chime in on this one, but I’ll also share my perspective. This request is admittedly open-ended since it’s intended to allow for a wide variety of projects to come through the process. If we look at the cases of Kata Containers and Zuul specifically, I could see the TC having some general thoughts (or not) about Kata Containers and potential integration with OpenStack projects or how it fits technically into an open source cloud landscape. For Zuul, I would imagine there might be a more detailed level of opinion or comment that the TC might have given the origin of Zuul and the continued extensive use as part of the OpenStack project development process. Perhaps things like support for the utility of Zuul as a major user, comments on the developer experience of the project.

Beyond providing technical input to help the Board assess integration 
and complementarity between technologies, I think that a body like the 
OpenStack Technical Committee can provide advice in two other areas:

1- The TC has practical experience of open collaboration under the "Four 
opens", and has derived a number of principles from them. It could 
therefore provide input to help the Board assess how well a pilot 
project fits the Open collaboration model, or how it seems to diverge 
from the OpenStack's implementation of the Four Opens.

2- OpenStack stands on strong technical best practices (like gating), 
that helped facilitate open collaboration and high QA levels.
The TC could also help assess best practices in areas like 
documentation, internationalization, code review, testing, CI/CD, bug 
handling, or vulnerability management.

While members of the Board are without doubt very technical, the Board 
of Directors as a body is better equipped to evaluate strategic focus or 
active engagement. It will IMHO benefit from input from others to 
evaluate open collaboration or technical best practices -- this is where 
other technical bodies from already-confirmed projects can help.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)