On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is > likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements. > > Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to > integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have > enough granular control via github to give permissions on the > apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the > entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with. > > What if we did the following: > - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have > 'owner' role representation. > - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack > repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the > cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from > apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack. > - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish > the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project > without being bound by its implications on other projects. > - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the > cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably > some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything > is consistent with the ASF requirements. > - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a > community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will > be no segmentation of the community. > - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so > no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a > "fork". > > I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there > are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real > viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties > requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same > direction. > > What do you all think? Will, I think it makes sense for the foundation to have a github organisation per project, which is basically what you are saying. An alternative might be sub- or nested organisations which I am sure, is a thing the people at github must have thought about at some time. If foundation policy at all allows for this we must. -- Daan
