50 lines
2.9 KiB
Plaintext
50 lines
2.9 KiB
Plaintext
Dear all,
|
||
|
||
It has been a great year for me to work on TC and work as TC vice-chair, and I
|
||
do like to join TC election again and keep serving this community as TC member
|
||
if I have the honor.
|
||
In the past year, I have been working on the following tasks:
|
||
|
||
* TC vice-chair: I thank for the vice-chair roles allows me dive in deeper on
|
||
TC activity. As we work on TC's daily support for TC chair. IMO, JP shows some
|
||
nice example to running TC chair by standardizing routine processes. And I do
|
||
feel it's great to work with him. And from what I learned, to consistent
|
||
checking on actions for TCs is something we should keep on. Also ML update
|
||
and host meetings. What I think we should try in advance are keep pushing TC
|
||
plus UC merging task, and work on providing better decision system so we can
|
||
make sure at the end of discussion, we have something put into actions and
|
||
that's been decided by TCs as a group.
|
||
|
||
* Meta SIG chair: It's a great opportunity to working on SIG govern, which
|
||
works with coordination between devs, ops, and users. We achieved on items
|
||
like pushing more new SIGs, create SIG guidelines, track SIG status, and of
|
||
course general SIG govern stuff. But SIGs still needs more attention. Which
|
||
is one of the goal I have to push SIG forward (And I'm happy to have others as
|
||
Meta SIG chair). IMO SIG only successful when it can provide a better bridge
|
||
across all roles. That's something we need to keep pushing our effort to expose
|
||
SIGs.
|
||
|
||
* Comparison of Official Group Structures: I also work on providing [1] so
|
||
whoever join this community, can have better understanding on how we works.
|
||
Over time, our structure require changes, so we can evolve and provide
|
||
understandable structures for the whole time (and for old and new members).
|
||
What we can keep working on is to consistently review the structure flow,
|
||
to make sure everything makes sense for a community to allow consistency and
|
||
evolution. Also as mentioned, to combine TC and UC, will require more review
|
||
on structure to make sure teams all get benefits from the achievement we plan.
|
||
|
||
* Cross culture bridge: This is something I'm reeeally proud of. To help
|
||
community members reach better communication despite language, culture, and
|
||
timezone barriers. I get the honor to serve a great number of community members
|
||
on this task, and I'm proud of it. This also alerts me that we need more
|
||
members in community to become the bridge. We have some great people to keep
|
||
working on this, but we simply need more from different languages, cultures,
|
||
and timezone. So community members can have a better way to reach to TCs.
|
||
|
||
* community goal schedule: gmann doing really good job on keep community-wide
|
||
goal forward. As we implemented our goal schedule to cover from pre-select,
|
||
select, and implementation schedule. I'm planning to keep govern that
|
||
process to make sure we jump in the correct routine.
|
||
|
||
[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/comparison-of-official-group-structures.html
|