On 07/02/2013 05:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Robert Collins > <robe...@robertcollins.net <mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net>> wrote: > > On 2 July 2013 21:32, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org > <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote: > > Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> """ > >> 'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the > completion > >> of our mission. Programs can create any code repository and > produce any > >> deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals. > >> > >> Programs are placed under the oversight of the Technical > Committee, and > >> contributing to one of their code repositories grants you ATC status. > >> > >> Current efforts or teams which want to be recognized as an 'OpenStack > >> Program' should place a request to the Technical Committee, > including a > >> clear mission statement describing how they help the OpenStack > general > >> mission and how that effort is essential to the completion of our > >> mission. If programs have a goal that includes the production of > >> a server 'integrated' deliverable, that specific project would still > >> need to go through an Incubation period. > >> > >> The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron', > >> 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', > 'Documentation', > >> 'Infrastructure', 'QA' and 'Oslo'. 'Trove' and 'Ironic' are in > >> incubation. Those programs should retroactively submit a mission > >> statement and initial lead designation, if they don't have one > already. > >> """ > > > > Oops. In this variant, Trove and Ironic, as programs, would not be "in > > incubation" (only one of their deliverables would). That last > paragraph > > should be fixed as: > > > > """ > > The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron', > > 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', > 'Documentation', > > 'Infrastructure', 'QA', 'Oslo', 'Trove' and 'Ironic'. Those programs > > should retroactively submit a mission statement and initial lead > > designation, if they don't have one already. > > """ > > > > Maybe Ironic should be merged into the TripleO program when it's > considered. > > Certainly; with our focus on deploy and operations, Ironic is very > much something we'll care about forever :). OTOH, baremetal machine > provisioning is a distinct concern from OpenStack deployment and > operations. I don't know that there is a better place for Ironic; it's > certainly got significant tentacles into other areas than just Nova > [hence it being split out in the first place]. Nevertheless : clearly > Ironic is a Project, and Incubated. I think whether it is incorporated > into it's own Program, or TripleO, isn't a very interesting question. > ATC membership is decoupled from things now, so \o/. > > On proposal 3, I wonder if it makes things too vague : if a Program > can have one or more integrated Projects, it sort of suggests that > perhaps Neutron be a Project of the Nova Program? > > > I like option 3 because it lets us move ahead without having to revisit > what may just have been an unfortunate narrowness of vision in the > original charter (who knew we would grow so quickly?). We have been > letting the projects evolve around feature sets in a way that helps us > manage code and feature complexity, e.g. breaking networking and block > storage out of nova. The addition of programs as groups of one or more > projects is a natural way to manage changes in the community's size and > complexity as we continue to grow.
I'm fine with this as long as a program can be a group of 0 or more projects. On the chance that we decide to use the concept to refer to horizontal efforts (I do not think we need to decide on that right now) I would hate to be hide-bound and exclude security or release or translations because they don't have their own repo or project deliverable. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev