openstack/election
Code Issues Proposed changes

Adding Thierry Carrez candidacy for TC

Browse Source 
IRC nick: ttx

Change-Id: I62565a9550dd6da60a1f6b3ca05ffca8d01deaa0
This commit is contained in:
Thierry Carrez 2016-03-28 17:46:04 +02:00
parent 636ff1ea64
commit 3e41f88960
1 changed files with 80 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

80
candidates/newton/TC/thierry_carrez.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
Hi everyone,
I'd like to submit my candidacy for reelection on the Technical Committee.
For those who don't know me yet, my name is Thierry Carrez, I use "ttx" as
my IRC nickname. I'm currently employed by the OpenStack Foundation as its
Director of Engineering, which basically means I'm running the team in
charge of ensuring the long-term health of the upstream OpenStack open source
project and its governance. Handling the Technical Committee is my primary
activity: 6 months ago I left the PTL role for the Release Management Team in
order to be able to focus as much as possible on the TC.
One year ago I ran for election with the goal of having the TC "step out of
the way"[1]. The idea was to remove the TC from the critical path of getting
things done, and encourage a "ask for forgiveness, rather than permission"
attitude in our community. I like to think we were successful at this. Project
teams can now more easily add git repositories as they need them, they also
end up asserting some tags by themselves, and the TC has generally moved to
being an appeals board in case of disputes, rather than a procedural barrier
in getting things done.
Here are the three priorities for my upcoming mandate, if the electorate
chooses to reelect me to the TC:
1/ Cleaning up the big tent
The transition to the "big tent" governance model is now finished, with all
the expected projects now officially part of the OpenStack community. The
big tent is all about community: answering the "are you one of us" question.
Our approach there was to be inclusive and assume good faith, especially as
we caught up on documenting what we meant by "the OpenStack Way". Over the
past year we created the Project Team Guide[2], which clearly explains what is
expected of official project teams. I think it's time for us to look back at
all those projects we have in the tent, reach out to those who are lacking,
and not hesitate to remove the ones that are not following our common community
practices from the list of official project teams. Demoting a project used to
be particularly painful, with costly git repository renames crating disruption
on the demoted projects. But now that all projects hosted under our
infrastructure (official and unofficial) use the same namespace, this cost and
disruption are very limited, so cleaning up the big tent is now possible.
2/ Defining the limits of the big tent
The TC recently had two project team applications for which we had no good
answer: Poppy and Tacker. Those resulted in close (and somewhat arbitrary)
votes as each TC member tried to interpret the mission statement words and
what we stand for. In the case of Poppy, there was the question of whether a
service that proxies to non-OpenStack commercial services could be considered
part of "OpenStack", without an open source reference implementation to do
end-to-end testing against. In the case of Tacker, there was the question
of a service standing on top of other OpenStack services to present a
domain-specific API tailored to a specific use case or industry. Should
that still be "OpenStack", or just something that consumes OpenStack ? I'd
like the TC to take a step back and explore those two questions, without the
pressure of a specific project team addition. Clarifying the rules may result
in some official projects to be demoted to "unofficial" status as they would
not fit the rules anymore.
3/ Launching the new separated event for project team members
We recently started the discussion[3] on splitting the "design summit" into
wider community feedback / requirements-gathering sessions (that would
happen at the main Summit) and a specific event for project team members
to gather in a co-located venue to come up with a plan and organize its
execution. We still have a long way to go (and not that much time) to discuss
the format and the timing of this new event, and I expect the Newton membership
of the TC to help with taking quick decisions there. The next step here will
be a cross-project workshop at the Design Summit in Austin to discuss the
current plan and go deeper in the details.
Those are my three priorities for Newton and Ocata, and this is what I'll push
the Technical Committee towards if I'm elected.
Thank you all for your consideration !
[1] http://ttx.re/stepping-out-of-the-way.html
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/
[3] http://ttx.re/splitting-out-design-summit.html
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)