On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Monty Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 07/02/2013 05:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Robert Collins > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 2 July 2013 21:32, Thierry Carrez <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >> """ > > >> 'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the > > completion > > >> of our mission. Programs can create any code repository and > > produce any > > >> deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals. > > >> > > >> Programs are placed under the oversight of the Technical > > Committee, and > > >> contributing to one of their code repositories grants you ATC > status. > > >> > > >> Current efforts or teams which want to be recognized as an > 'OpenStack > > >> Program' should place a request to the Technical Committee, > > including a > > >> clear mission statement describing how they help the OpenStack > > general > > >> mission and how that effort is essential to the completion of our > > >> mission. If programs have a goal that includes the production of > > >> a server 'integrated' deliverable, that specific project would > still > > >> need to go through an Incubation period. > > >> > > >> The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron', > > >> 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', > > 'Documentation', > > >> 'Infrastructure', 'QA' and 'Oslo'. 'Trove' and 'Ironic' are in > > >> incubation. Those programs should retroactively submit a mission > > >> statement and initial lead designation, if they don't have one > > already. > > >> """ > > > > > > Oops. In this variant, Trove and Ironic, as programs, would not be > "in > > > incubation" (only one of their deliverables would). That last > > paragraph > > > should be fixed as: > > > > > > """ > > > The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron', > > > 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', > > 'Documentation', > > > 'Infrastructure', 'QA', 'Oslo', 'Trove' and 'Ironic'. Those > programs > > > should retroactively submit a mission statement and initial lead > > > designation, if they don't have one already. > > > """ > > > > > > Maybe Ironic should be merged into the TripleO program when it's > > considered. > > > > Certainly; with our focus on deploy and operations, Ironic is very > > much something we'll care about forever :). OTOH, baremetal machine > > provisioning is a distinct concern from OpenStack deployment and > > operations. I don't know that there is a better place for Ironic; > it's > > certainly got significant tentacles into other areas than just Nova > > [hence it being split out in the first place]. Nevertheless : clearly > > Ironic is a Project, and Incubated. I think whether it is > incorporated > > into it's own Program, or TripleO, isn't a very interesting question. > > ATC membership is decoupled from things now, so \o/. > > > > On proposal 3, I wonder if it makes things too vague : if a Program > > can have one or more integrated Projects, it sort of suggests that > > perhaps Neutron be a Project of the Nova Program? > > > > > > I like option 3 because it lets us move ahead without having to revisit > > what may just have been an unfortunate narrowness of vision in the > > original charter (who knew we would grow so quickly?). We have been > > letting the projects evolve around feature sets in a way that helps us > > manage code and feature complexity, e.g. breaking networking and block > > storage out of nova. The addition of programs as groups of one or more > > projects is a natural way to manage changes in the community's size and > > complexity as we continue to grow. > > I'm fine with this as long as a program can be a group of 0 or more > projects. On the chance that we decide to use the concept to refer to > horizontal efforts (I do not think we need to decide on that right now) > I would hate to be hide-bound and exclude security or release or > translations because they don't have their own repo or project deliverable. > Works for me. Doug > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
