If it ever becomes necessary for us to pass a resolution to deal with every disagreement, we might as well all go herd goats.
This is a very straightforward situation, which has been blown out of all reasonable proportion through well-intentioned but misplaced concerns. Please, everyone, let's call it resolved. Doug Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:26:37 +0000: > 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
