On 2016-11-28 13:33:56 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > 1. A resolution reaffirming the "level playing field" requirement, > and acknowledging that it effectively precludes official status > for teams which only develop drivers for proprietary systems > (hard black) [2] [...] > 2. A resolution reaffirming the "level playing field" requirement, > and acknowledging that it does not necessarily preclude official > status for teams which only develop drivers for proprietary > systems (soft black) [3] [...] > 3. A resolution and policy change removing the "level playing field" > requirement (hard white) [4] [...] > 4. A resolution and policy change loosening the "level playing field" > requirement (soft white) [5] [...] > [2] https://review.openstack.org/403834 - Proprietary driver dev is unlevel > [3] https://review.openstack.org/403836 - Driver development can be level > [4] https://review.openstack.org/403838 - Stop requiring a level playing field > [5] https://review.openstack.org/403839 - Level playing fields, except drivers [...]
I proposed these because I have a strong preference not to bury the problem in additional bureaucracy. Either we determine that we want to recognize the developers writing drivers as an official part of our community and need to reinterpret/adjust our policies because they're in conflict with our intent, or we decide that the intent of our policy necessarily precludes official recognition for driver teams. Without addressing this issue at its source, we're sort of avoiding addressing it at all. I'm not really a fan of the more complex solutions proposed, since they don't seem (to me) to address the fundamental issue. I feel like the "Big Tent" only remains true to its design if we have one kind of team in it. As soon as we begin to define second-class teams that are still in some way "official" we're back to much of the same conflict and tension which drove us to our current governance model in the first place. The scaling concerns from allowing too many "small" teams who only develop drivers should be dealt with as a separate issue. There are plenty of other small, single-affiliation developer teams working within our community and I think whatever solutions we come up with for scaling limited resources in the tent shouldn't single out driver development as the cause. I think we also need to look harder at the reasons for driver-only developer teams seeking official status. If it's because they want to be part of the community and help collaborate with the rest of us, then as long as they can do that consistent with our overall goals and ideals I think that's great and we should welcome them as one of us. If the reason is because they feel it raises the profile of their products within the OpenStack ecosystem or conveys an implication of better OpenStack support on their platforms, then we should work harder as a community to dispel that notion (even if it means we need to actively sabotage the "tent" as a marketing platform) and find other places for companies to advertise the level of OpenStack support their customers should expect. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
