openstack team mailing list archive

[Soren Hansen <soren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

2012/1/5 Jim Curry <jim.curry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> So now for the update.  In reality, there has been a ton of work
> occurring to build a proposal that can serve as the basis for a
> constructive community conversation.  I firmly believe that the best
> way to have a conversation with a group as diverse and large as the
> OpenStack community is to start with a very defined proposal that
> everyone can react to — positively or negatively.  This proposal is
> not meant to be anything other than a framework to manage the
> discussion.  No decisions are being made without the involvement of
> the broad community.

What does that mean?

>From what I understand so far,  someone at Rackspace will eventually
publish some documents for discussion and will "listen to feedback".
What if this feedback isn't unanimous? Are shooting for a minimum that
we can reach consensus on (by ripping out everything that anyone at all
disagrees with) or will there be a vote on individual points of
contention?  Will the documents as a whole be put to a vote?  If so,
what if they're rejected?  In both cases, who gets a vote?

> Trying to handle the large number of complex issues over a mailing
> list without a base framework would be impossible to manage.  It is
> also unfair to community members who don't live on the mailing lists
> day to day, but do want to review the plans and provide comments.

I'm much more concerned about the quality of the feedback than the
quantity. Twitter only lets you make a point in 140 characters. That's
hardly enough for a delicate discussion like this. A webinar isn't any
better, because these things need carefully thought out arguments, not
just whatever you can come up right there on the spot.  Honestly, if
people have strong opinions on this subject, but can't be bothered to
send an e-mail, that's sad.

> We are basing this initial proposal on a lot of input received from the
> community and beyond — developers, users, companies, other open source
> projects and foundations, lawyers, specific country experts, etc.

How has this worked? Have these people (who?) been asked a specific set
of questions? Can we see them so that we can consider the same
questions?  Can we see the feedback itself?

If you expect the foundation after it's been established to take it into
consideration at all, it needs to be disclosed, otherwise the first
revision of the bylaws/constitution might go against this feedback
entirely, and then it's been a waste of time.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/