Robert Collins wrote: >> To match with the current state we would end up with: >> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder, >> Ceilometer, Heat) >> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic) >> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA) > > Maybe Programs should have an incubation period, where they show they > have their s***^Wstuff together before being blessed ?
I thought about that, but convinced myself that it wasn't really worth the extra bureaucracy. An incubation status is only useful if it gives you something that you wouldn't have if you grew the effort in isolation. In the case of incubated projects, it basically gives you release management attention (their releases end up being handled by me). It also gives you publicity so that programs and other projects start caring about you and integrate with you, so that you can safely be made part of the integrated release one day. Programs like Infrastructure, QA or Documentation all grew without the need to be incubated. They don't need release management attention, and they don't need as much integration publicity, since they are not bound to be part of the integrated release in the end. So I see the extra hassle of having to file for incubation, be accepted and then graduate... as not being worth it. We have loose teams informally gathering to work on stuff all the time. Let them just be. And if one day they think their work is critical to the success of the project and should be one of the project goals, they can apply to become an official program. >> * There are efforts that span multiple projects but work directly on the >> project code repositories, like integrated release, or stable >> maintenance, or vulnerability management (collectively called for the >> convenience of this thread "horizontal efforts"). Should they be >> considered separate programs (without repos) ? Be lumped together into >> some catch-all "integration" or "production" program ? Or ignored as far >> as ATC status goes ? I've mixed feelings about that. On one hand I'd >> like those efforts visible and official to be more widely seen as a good >> way to contribute to OpenStack. On the other hand it's hard to tie ATC >> membership to those since we can't trace that back to commits to a >> specific repo, and I'd like the programs mission statements to be >> precise rather than vague, so that the TC can bless them... > > If a Program has no code repos of it's own, but it's contributors > contribute to other projects, ATC status seems like a two-fold thing. > On the one hand, you want ATC status for individual contributors to > vote for the TC. Check, thats achieved. On the other hand you want ATC > status to vote for the PTL of the Program : that will be harder. As > Monty says, lets revisit. Also, I don't think we have any Program > without a code repo today, so it's a moot point : I suggest saying > that until it is revisited, there cannot be a Program w/o a code repo. What we have today is a number of "efforts" that are pretty central to OpenStack (like producing releases or maintaining stable branches) that do not appear in the new taxonomy. Those efforts don't have a code repository, they work with all code repos. Should those be considered separate programs ? A single "production" program ? Or not programs at all ? I see you advocate for the latter. All participants to those efforts are already ATCs since their work is done on other projects, so that's not a big problem in that respect. The main issue I see is that if it's not listed anywhere, that work is not really visible, which does not entice anyone to join those and help. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
