Let me toss out my perspective (FWIW) from a cloud planning perspective as
relates to single-vendor projects:
As an established OpenStack and cloud SDN architect and by extension a
working owner, I do design work for lots of the companies who read this
list. Let me just say that from where I sit,
On 04/08/16 23:00, joehuang wrote:
I think all the problem is caused by the definition "official OpenStack
project" for one big-tent project.
I understand that each OpenStack vendor wants some differentiation in their
solution, while also would
like to collaborate with common core projects.
: Erno Kuvaja [ekuv...@redhat.com]
Sent: 05 August 2016 1:15
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto wr
On 08/04/2016 01:52 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote:
Ironic does have radosgw support, and it's documented here:
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/radosgw.html -- clearly it's
not "first class" as we don't validate it in CI like we do with swift, but the
code exists and I believe we have
Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
On Aug 4, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Fox, Kevin M
mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:
The problem is, OpenStack is a very fractured landscape. It takes significant
amounts of time
;]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:27 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
On 08/04/2016 03:02 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Nope. The incompatibility was for things that never were in radosgw, not thi
wartzlander [b...@swartzlander.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:27 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
On 08/04/2016 03:02 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Nope. The incompatibility was for thing
rez [thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some t
zlander [b...@swartzlander.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:21 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
On 08/04/2016 11:57 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Ok. I'll play devils advocate here and speak to the
-Original Message-
From: Fox, Kevin M
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: August 4, 2016 at 13:40:53
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
ot for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
Kevin,
What do you mean by "Other OpenStack projects don't take it into
account because its not a big tent thing"? I think there is pretty
decent adoption of Ceph across the projects where it wo
6 5:59 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and
nobody seems interested to join it, the tech
fore we advocate single vendor projects
> exit the big tent after some time. As the testing situation may be made
> worse.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto wrote:
>>
>> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from
>> our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the
>> principles of "four opens". It seems
On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Devdatta Kulkarni wrote:
> > As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single
> > -vendor tag, I have following thoughts/questions on this issue.
>
> In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the
> table
e big tent after some time. As the testing situation may be made worse.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: R
.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and
>> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project
>> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack
>> ecosystem
On 07/31/2016 05:59 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> This sounds good to me.
>
> What about making it iterative but with a delayed start. Something like:
>
> There is a grace period of 1 year for projects that newly join the big tent.
> After which, the following criteria will be evaluated to keep a pr
On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto wrote:
> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from
> our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the
> principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such
> projects sends an al
On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and
> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project
> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack
> ecosystem of projects is limited. It'
Devdatta Kulkarni wrote:
> As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single-vendor tag,
> I have following thoughts/questions on this issue.
In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the table
at this stage -- this is just a discussion to see whether it would be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/08/16 21:15, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 02/08/16 15:13 +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>> On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Thierry,
)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
To Steven's specific question:
> If PTLs can weigh in on this thread and commit to participation in such a
> cross-project subgroup, I'd be happy to lead it.
I would like to participate and help get this kind
m: Steven Dake (stdake) [mailto:std...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 11:45 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
>
> Responses inline:
>
> On 8/2/16, 8
On 02/08/16 15:13 +, Hayes, Graham wrote:
On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Thierry, Ben, Doug,
How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but
others are not joining
> On 02 Aug 2016, at 17:13, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Thierry, Ben, Doug,
How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing,
On 02/08/2016 16:48, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Responses inline:
>
> On 8/2/16, 8:13 AM, "Hayes, Graham" wrote:
>
>> On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Thierry, Ben, Doug,
>
>>
Responses inline:
On 8/2/16, 8:13 AM, "Hayes, Graham" wrote:
>On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Thierry, Ben, Doug,
How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the righ
On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> Thierry, Ben, Doug,
>>>
>>> How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but
>>> others are not joining" vs "Project is actively tryin
On 8/2/16, 7:17 AM, "Ed Leafe" wrote:
>On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>> For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things
>>to
>> dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They
>>aren't
>> just trying, but are trying *very*
On 02/08/16 09:17 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things to
dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They aren't
just trying, but are trying *very* hard with the
On 01/08/16 10:28 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sean,
So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that
already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag:
https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html
And trigger exit when the tag is present for m
On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Thierry, Ben, Doug,
How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but
others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people
out"?
I think at some level, it's not rea
On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things to
> dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They aren't
> just trying, but are trying *very* hard with their activities. They have
> the right
On 8/1/16, 8:38 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +:
>> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from
>>our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under
>>the principles of "four opens". It
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-08-02 11:16:29 +0100:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just
> > like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little
> > diversity is that they "just work"
On 08/02/2016 06:16 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote:
>
>> Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just
>> like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little
>> diversity is that they "just work". Usually people get invo
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote:
Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just
like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little
diversity is that they "just work". Usually people get involved when
something doesn't work or they need somethi
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 13:43 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would
> > just like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very
> > little diversity is that they "just work". Usually
On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Adrian Otto wrote:
> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our
> big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the
> principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such
> projects sends
On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +:
>>> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects
>>> from our big tent at all, as long as they are bein
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +:
> > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects
> > from our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively
> > developed under the principles of "
Excerpts from Michael Krotscheck's message of 2016-08-01 16:06:45 +:
> FYI- I'm totally in favor of eviction. But...
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm interested in hearing other reasons that we should keep these
> > sorts of projects, though. I'm not yet
FYI- I'm totally in favor of eviction. But...
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> I'm interested in hearing other reasons that we should keep these
> sorts of projects, though. I'm not yet ready to propose the change
> to the policy myself.
...if the social consequences res
Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +:
> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our
> big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the
> principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such
>
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-08-01 10:31:44 -0400:
> On 08/01/2016 10:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Sean,
> >
> > So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that
> > already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag:
> >
> > https://governance.openstack.or
I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our big
tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the principles
of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such projects sends
an alarming signal to our ecosystem. The reason we made th
On 08/01/2016 10:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Sean,
>
> So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that
> already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag:
>
> https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html
>
> And trigger exit when the tag is
Sean,
So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that
already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag:
https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html
And trigger exit when the tag is present for more than 3 cycles in a
row (say as of release date?
On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Thierry, Ben, Doug,
>
> How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but
> others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people
> out"?
I think at some level, it's not really that different. If we treat them
Thierry, Ben, Doug,
How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but
others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people
out"?
Thanks,
Dims
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 03:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Steve
On 08/01/2016 03:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
[...]
To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be
given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow
diverse enough to get team:di
he implementation simple with a single
deadline, even if that means we give some teams what appears to be a
more generous amount of time than they need.
Doug
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com]
> Sent: Sunday,
On 07/31/2016 02:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-31 18:17:28 +:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Just assessing your numbers, the team:diverse-affiliation tag covers what
>> is required to maintain that tag. It covers more then core reviewers -
>> also cove
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be
>>> given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow
>>> div
Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>> [...]
>> To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be
>> given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow
>> diverse enough to get team:diverse-affiliation.
>
> That makes s
er notification and 6 months if still out of
>> >compliance)
>> >
>> >This should allow projects that are, or become under diverse a path
>> >towards working on project membership diversity. It gives projects that
>> >are very far out of wack a while to fi
t; >Thoughts? The numbers should be fairly easy to change to make for
> >different amounts of grace period.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Kevin
> >
> >From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016
gets 6 months
>
>Thoughts? The numbers should be fairly easy to change to make for
>different amounts of grace period.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>________________
>From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:16 AM
>To: op
From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:16 AM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
Starting a new thread from "Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc]
Looks like Mirant
Starting a new thread from "Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc]
Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off"
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-07-31 11:37:44 +0200:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered
>
62 matches
Mail list logo
