Zane, Steve, I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
Thanks, -- Dims On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> wrote: > Jay, > > I'll be frank. I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror > Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big > tent project. These are not just Kolla developers. These are people from > all over the community. They want something done about it. I agree with > Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would > disappear. We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we > disagree with them. This contract is the agreement under which > democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of > OpenStack. > > In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid > these scenarios in the future. > > The TC has four options as I see it: > 1) do nothing > 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis > 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis > 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis > and second analysis > > I don't wish Mirantis to state anything. Vladimir did that (thanks > Vladimir!). > > Regards > -steve > > > On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I don't see what is unclear about any of it. >> >>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state? >> >>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it >>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent". >> >>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons >>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in >>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes. >> >>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that >>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and >>orchestration tooling. >> >>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC >>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent >>be useful here? >> >>-jay >> >>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >>> Jay, >>> >>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -steve >>> >>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The TC has given guidance on this already: >>>> >>>> >>>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retireme >>>>nt >>>> .html >>>> >>>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of >>>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed >>>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use >>>>the >>>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe >>>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated." >>>> >>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack >>>>projects. >>>> >>>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common >>>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join >>>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the >>>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository). >>>> >>>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects? >>>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of >>>> time. >>>> >>>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what >>>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at >>>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a >>>>place >>>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger >>>>about >>>> that. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> -jay >>>> >>>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >>>>> Doug, >>>>> >>>>> Zane's analysis is correct. I agree with Zane's assessment that TC >>>>> clarification can solve this situation. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> -steve >>>>> >>>>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote: >>>>>>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to >>>>>>>participate. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now >>>>>>> experimental. >>>>>>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and >>>>>>> developing >>>>>>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These >>>>>>> repos >>>>>>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we >>>>>>>add >>>>>>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not >>>>>>>all >>>>>>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what >>>>>>it >>>>>> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these >>>>>> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this >>>>>> thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team >>>>>>in >>>>>> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each >>>>>> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other >>>>>>repos >>>>>> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy >>>>>>to >>>>>> see how people could have developed this interpretation in good >>>>>>faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the >>>>>>only >>>>>> criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one >>>>>>of >>>>>> us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; >>>>>>and >>>>>> that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, >>>>>> subject >>>>>> to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also >>>>>> easy >>>>>> to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good >>>>>> faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very >>>>>>closely >>>>>> at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the >>>>>> (incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone >>>>>>has >>>>>> the same interpretation :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current >>>>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the >>>>>> complaints about it look like sour grapes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current >>>>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC >>>>>> oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of >>>>>>an >>>>>> official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part >>>>>>of >>>>>> said official project), and the complaints look like a logical >>>>>>attempt >>>>>> to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can >>>>>>clarify >>>>>> what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> Zane. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>__ >>>>>> __ >>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>__ >>>>> _ >>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>________________________________________________________________________ >>>>__ >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>>_ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >>__________________________________________________________________________ >>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
