On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Steven, > >Please see response from Doug: >http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki Dims, Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC? I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment of the problem at hand. Clarity has not been reached. I could restate the problem for you if you like. > >If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution. > >Let's stop this thread now please. Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not the right thing. Regards -steve > >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-reti >>>>>>>re >>>>>>>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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
