openstack/election
Code Issues Proposed changes

Adding Monty Taylor candidacy for TC

Browse Source 
Change-Id: I217e334856ce61c9de7ed23e007b7bba5cc8ed90
This commit is contained in:
Monty Taylor 2016-09-28 15:30:38 -05:00
parent 20ef03f214
commit 9eb62f368b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 7BAE94BC7141A594
1 changed files with 120 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

120
candidates/ocata/TC/mordred.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
I would like to serve the community on the Technical Committee again.
For those of you who don't know me:
* I've served on the TC since it was the PPB.
* I founded and am past-PTL of OpenStack Infra.
* I also serve on the OpenStack Board of Directors as an Individual Member,
which is a position I've held since the formation of the Foundation.
Our culture and our commonality define us and draw us together, and that's
a good thing. We are one of the world's most successful Open Source projects.
The reason we're so successful is that we've always valued the we over the I.
We've always made choices that maxmize our ability to work with each other,
even if those choices might dimish the ability of some 'Brilliant Jerk' to
amaze us with their brilliance and just how big of a jerk they can be.
We should continue to hold strong to our idea of an environment where we're
all equal, where we can all work together regardless of background and where
collaboration is valued in its own right.
** OpenStack is One Project. **
Together we are much greater than the sum of our parts. It's vital that we
all understand that and actively look for ways to work together. It's hard,
of course. It's much easier to hunker down with a few close friends and shut
out all the noise as distraction. However, our primary advantage is that there
are a lot of us, and that we work together. The world is replete with projects
that are tightly controlled by a single person or a single company. We're
different, and it can give us strength. But it will only be a strength when
we all pull together and actively look for ways in which we can align with each
other, rather than looking for legalistic lists of ways in which we are
required to.
As our community is one of our greatest strengths, we need to become better
at being steadfast in our adherance to each other. When our friends get tired
and decide that all of this community crap is too hard, we need to provide
them support and help them to understand that not only is the community part
not a waste of time, it is, in fact, one of the most important aspects of
who we are.
** OpenStack delivers computers via an API, not VMs. **
Any positioning that our primary unit of operation is a VM is antiquated and
wrong. Bare metal, VMs and Containers are all essential building blocks - and
more importantly each of those being able to exist in a shared networking
context able to access the same storage resources is the ballgame. Any time
any part of our community wants to suggest that one of the three have primacy
over the others, we need to lovingly but firmly put our foot down and stand up
for our users.
We are not in competition with Kubernetes, Mesos or Docker. They're all
wonderful projects that solve problems for their users. All three of them
need to run on an Infrastructure. We should be the friendliest Infrastructure
for them.
** Success is defined by empowering our Users to solve their problems. **
OpenStack has IPv6 support. None of the closed-source Public Clouds do. We
should be more proud of that. OpenStack can give you a direct L2 IP that
isn't forced to pass through a NAT layer. None of the closed-source Public
Clouds can do that. Oracle just annouced that as an "exciting" thing that
would set their new Public Cloud apart. It's not exciting, it's basic
functionality that the other clouds lack, and they're late to the party. We've
had it for years, and we should be proud of that. We should not chase
mediocrity by accepting the premise that the feature definitions in a set of
existing closed-source Public Clouds are the gospel. We should instead empower
our end-users by putting the tools of computing that they actually want in
their hands, not just the tools someone else thinks they should want.
NAT is a hack, it's not a feature. We should treat it as the lame second-class
citizen it truly is, and we should make all the other clouds who are not us
ashamed that it's the only crappy networking they give their users. We should
continue to love our users.
** The world is a really big place with a bunch of really wonderful people. **
We have OpenStack Public Clouds all over the world, in more geographical
locations than any of the closed-source Public Clouds. We should all be proud
of that. There is not a US-centric single giant OpenStack Public Cloud ...
but that's a good thing, not a failure. Single clouds are single points of
failure, both from a technology standpoint and from a 'random executive has
an agenda' standpoint. An ecosystem of clouds running the same software but
run by different operators with different needs and goals is an ecosystem
we should all be proud of - and we can be proud of that today.
We have grassroots OpenStack communities world-wide full of amazing people.
We have people all over the world who are solving problems with OpenStack.
We should all be proud of that.
** There are still plenty of challenges ahead of us. **
The end user experience with OpenStack is scattered and deployer decisions
leak through APIs in too many places. We can and should fix that.
Even though we've spent years working on consolidation, we still have a
fragmented Operations story. It turns out there are a considerable number
of OpenStack clouds out there being run by teams of 3-4 people - but our
project organizational structure lends itself to assuming that cloud operators
will have a team-per-service. Having an operational team per OpenStack service
might be a choice some of the largest Operators make - but even then it's
an exceptionally wasteful model and should not be what we assume is the norm.
We can and should continue to aggressively improve the consistency of
experience for our Operators in addition to our End Users.
The world is not just written in Python. The time has come for us to develop
a legitimate story about what non-Python API services look like in an OpenStack
context. However, our community, its ability to collaborate effectively, our
Operators and our End Users are all more important than any individual's
personal preferences. Accordingly, our exploration of new options
must be done in the context of our existing users and projects. We already
have risen to an exceptionally difficult challenge of balancing stable
releases AND continuous delivery as equally important deliery vehicles. We
cannot accept new service languges into the fold until both delivery use cases
have compelling stories, else we risk regressing on the progress we've made in
this space so far.
We have a lot of work to do, but we can do it if we work together. I'd like to
continue helping, and will do everything I can to ensure that we succeed.