My understanding from earlier discussions is that it was the purview of the Foundation directors to determine what was a core project and what is not.
As I understood it previously, the business folks (Foundation board) determine 'strategy' and the technical folks (Foundation TC) determines 'tactics'. I think the gap that is being identified here is that there are strategy and tactics for both business and technical. The strategy issues related to technology are architecture and vision. This area has been 'owned' by the PTLs to date and the contention here is whether that moves to the TC, stays with the PTLs, or is a combination of both where PTLs are a subset of the TC. I think that myself, and possibly at times the community as a whole, have some pretty different ideas from the PTLs about the direction of certain components of OpenStack. The best way to resolve this from my point of view is to have a structure that allows for a "market forces" approach: "rough consensus and running code" a la the IETF. Hopefully, that way the best ideas will boil to the top over time. Unfortunately, that still leaves it unclear where the strategic direction is for technology. We have no Linus Torvalds for this project. --Randy Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling +1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice] TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias CALENDAR: http://tungle.me/randybias On Jun 23, 2012, at 4:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > If the TC defines what is a core project and what is not, talks about > how collaboration between projects should be achieved, and then resolves > potential disputes /between/ PTLs, then I think the risk for abuse to > core projects is very limited (the PTL is still very much in full > control of his project).
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : openstack-poc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
