Steven, Please see response from Doug: http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution. Let's stop this thread now please. Thanks, Dims On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> wrote: > Dims, > > I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this > problem via a resolution. That’s why we elected you folks :) > > Regards > -steve > > > On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>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-retire >>>>>>me >>>>>>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 > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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