settingsLogin | Registersettings

[OpenStack Foundation] Summit split

0 votes

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

Tim


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
asked Apr 20, 2016 in openstack-foundation by Tim_Bell (16,440 points)   1 8 10

7 Responses

0 votes

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by Monty_Taylor (22,780 points)   2 5 8
0 votes

Like ships in the night it appears jonathan’s message passed yours:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/2016-April/000226.html

I have the same understanding, Monty, and plans are being developed as we speak to implement the new model for 2017. As noted in the email there is a session to discuss the particulars next week in Austin:

https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478 https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478

On Apr 20, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Monty Taylor mordred@inaugust.com wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by mark_at_openstack.or (1,960 points)   1 3
0 votes

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might not all be able to make the larger discussion event (https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim

On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" mordred@inaugust.com wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by Tim_Bell (16,440 points)   1 8 10
0 votes

I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that unless
the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be made by
the foundation team.
To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is
disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be
pushed through as a fait accompli.

Best Regards

Mark Baker

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell Tim.Bell@cern.ch wrote:

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a
quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might
not all be able to make the larger discussion event (
https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim

On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" mordred@inaugust.com wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk
for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future
locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by Mark_Baker (480 points)  
0 votes

On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Monty Taylor mordred@inaugust.com wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.

This was my understanding, as well. I'm very happy to hear about the
progress being made. Thanks!

--
Russell


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by Russell_Bryant (19,240 points)   2 4 8
0 votes

Hi Mark,

The way we ended the discussion in the last Board meeting is that Foundation staff was going to take the next step to start looking at what the implementation of a Project Team Gathering would look like. This would help us clearly answer some of the questions that were coming up (when would it happen, what would it do to the Ocata release cycle timing, what kind of funding would be required, what kinds of venues would be appropriate). I just posted an update on some of this to the Board list earlier today, and we were planning to discuss again at the upcoming meeting on Sunday. I think it does make sense to cover it in the joint meeting with the TC and UC members, so thanks for adding it to the agenda there, Tim.

In terms of something being “pushed through as a fait accompli,” as we’ve covered in the last 2 Board meetings, this discussion has been going on seriously in the technical community for over a year now. This really accelerated in early 2016 on several openstack-dev mailing list threads with a general consensus emerging that there were quite a few benefits to adjusting the release cycle and giving the project teams additional dedicated, focused work time. As mentioned in the other thread, the first such event would be almost a year from now, so all together we’re talking about nearly two years of open discussions among multiple groups from start to implementation.

Looking forward to continuing the discussion in Austin,

Jonathan

On Apr 20, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Mark Baker mark.baker@canonical.com wrote:

I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that unless the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be made by the foundation team.
To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be pushed through as a fait accompli.

Best Regards

Mark Baker

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell@cern.ch Tim.Bell@cern.ch> wrote:

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might not all be able to make the larger discussion event (https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478 https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim

On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" <mordred@inaugust.com mordred@inaugust.com> wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by jonathan_at_openstac (1,540 points)   1 3
0 votes

I appreciate there has been much discussion and welcome the opportunity for
more as well as clarity about the decision making process.

The aspect I was uncomfortable with was the possibility that the decision
has been made and that the opportunity for further input from the board had
passed. Good to see it on the agenda for Sunday.

Best Regards

Mark Baker

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Bryce jonathan@openstack.org
wrote:

Hi Mark,

The way we ended the discussion in the last Board meeting is that
Foundation staff was going to take the next step to start looking at what
the implementation of a Project Team Gathering would look like. This would
help us clearly answer some of the questions that were coming up (when
would it happen, what would it do to the Ocata release cycle timing, what
kind of funding would be required, what kinds of venues would be
appropriate). I just posted an update on some of this to the Board list
earlier today, and we were planning to discuss again at the upcoming
meeting on Sunday. I think it does make sense to cover it in the joint
meeting with the TC and UC members, so thanks for adding it to the agenda
there, Tim.

In terms of something being “pushed through as a fait accompli,” as we’ve
covered in the last 2 Board meetings, this discussion has been going on
seriously in the technical community for over a year now. This really
accelerated in early 2016 on several openstack-dev mailing list threads
with a general consensus emerging that there were quite a few benefits to
adjusting the release cycle and giving the project teams additional
dedicated, focused work time. As mentioned in the other thread, the first
such event would be almost a year from now, so all together we’re talking
about nearly two years of open discussions among multiple groups from start
to implementation.

Looking forward to continuing the discussion in Austin,

Jonathan

On Apr 20, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Mark Baker mark.baker@canonical.com wrote:

I fully agree - it was not made clear in the last board meeting that
unless the board specifically requested a decision, the decision would be
made by the foundation team.
To find that a decision has been made and plans put in motion is
disturbing. This is a significant change for OpenStack and should not be
pushed through as a fait accompli.

Best Regards

Mark Baker

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Tim Bell Tim.Bell@cern.ch wrote:

While I am in favor of the proposal, it is a significant change and a
quick item in the board/tc/uc meeting would seem reasonable and we might
not all be able to make the larger discussion event (
https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9478)

I’ll add it to the agenda on the etherpad.

Tim

On 20/04/16 18:31, "Monty Taylor" mordred@inaugust.com wrote:

On 04/20/2016 10:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote:

Looking at the agenda at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk
for
the TC/UC/Board meeting, there is no item for the potential split of
the
summit/design summit.

When do we need to make the decision by in order to plan future
locations ?

My understanding (which is likely wrong) from the last meeting was that
there was no requested decision from the board and that it was being
handled by the foundation staff as part of their operational duties.


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Apr 20, 2016 by Mark_Baker (480 points)  
...