atom feed9 messages in net.launchpad.lists.openstack[Openstack] User Friendly Development...
FromSent OnAttachments
Lloyd DewolfJul 26, 2012 2:33 pm 
Thierry CarrezJul 27, 2012 1:49 am 
Lloyd DewolfJul 27, 2012 9:59 am 
Mark CollierJul 27, 2012 10:17 am 
Vishvananda IshayaJul 27, 2012 10:38 am 
Tim BellJul 27, 2012 10:56 am 
Ryan LaneJul 27, 2012 11:17 am 
Stefano MaffulliJul 27, 2012 12:43 pm 
Atul JhaJul 27, 2012 2:19 pm 
Subject:[Openstack] User Friendly Development -was- Fwd: [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom
From:Lloyd Dewolf (lloy@gmail.com)
Date:Jul 26, 2012 2:33:55 pm
List:net.launchpad.lists.openstack

Oops, I meant to fork the thread.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lloyd Dewolf <lloy@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [Openstack] [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom To: open@lists.launchpad.net

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie@openstack.org> wrote:

Using the "user committee" setup, you don't really need to take authority away from the PTL. You increase the influence of the "users" on technical decisions. You just provide a clear and official mechanism to represent the interests of "the users" as a whole. Once you have that, if the PTL or technical committee decides to ignore it, it's a rather strong decision that better has to be well justified. Its better than having some arbitrary percentage of "users" in a single committee and then have most decisions won by the most largely represented party.

If the user committee is an active and respected group, it provides nice checks and balances against developers living in developer bubbles. Most issues we have right now with deployer-friendliness are linked to the fact that "the users" don't have a clear or official voice.

The trick is, of course, to manage to set up such a committee in a way that represents all the users and deployers. It will be all the more influential if it is seen as representing all the users, rather than just a loosely-tied pre-determined subset of large users.

I generally agree with your thoughts around a "user committee".

For my benefit, I'd love to get a feel for what we're doing to make development user friendly?

In my fantasies for the Grizzly release it would start something like:

A. Grizzly Summit

B. From the summit the Tech Committee & PTL have community consensus on the overarching goal for the release and the projects' goals. Articulated online in user friendly manner.

C. Webinar / OpenStack User Groups get a presentation on the release goals, and channels for input and participation.

D. About the half way point in release schedule, development adjusts the online communication to reflect reality, presents an update, and again channels for input and participation.

How do things work today? I haven't found much in the wiki.

Thanks,