On 12/13/2013 09:53 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > TL;DR: > Incubation is getting harder, why not ask efforts to apply for a new > program first to get the visibility they need to grow. > > Long version: > > Last cycle we introduced the concept of "Programs" to replace the > concept of "Official projects" which was no longer working that well for > us. This was recognizing the work of existing teams, organized around a > common mission, as an integral part of "delivering OpenStack". > Contributors to programs become ATCs, so they get to vote in Technical > Committee (TC) elections. In return, those teams place themselves under > the authority of the TC. > > This created an interesting corner case. Projects applying for > incubation would actually request two concurrent things: be considered a > new "Program", and give "incubated" status to a code repository under > that program. > > Over the last months we significantly raised the bar for accepting new > projects in incubation, learning from past integration and QA mistakes. > The end result is that a number of promising projects applied for > incubation but got rejected on maturity, team size, team diversity, or > current integration level grounds. > > At that point I called for some specific label, like "Emerging > Technology" that the TC could grant to promising projects that just need > more visibility, more collaboration, more crystallization before they > can make good candidates to be made part of our integrated releases. > > However, at the last TC meeting it became apparent we could leverage > "Programs" to achieve the same result. Promising efforts would first get > their mission, scope and existing results blessed and recognized as > something we'd really like to see in OpenStack one day. Then when they > are ready, they could have one of their deliveries apply for incubation > if that makes sense. > > The consequences would be that the effort would place itself under the > authority of the TC. Their contributors would be ATCs and would vote in > TC elections, even if their deliveries never make it to incubation. They > would get (some) space at Design Summits. So it's not "free", we still > need to be pretty conservative about accepting them, but it's probably > manageable. > > I'm still weighing the consequences, but I think it's globally nicer > than introducing another status. As long as the TC feels free to revoke > Programs that do not deliver the expected results (or that no longer > make sense in the new world order) I think this approach would be fine. > > Comments, thoughts ? >
I don't have much to add right now beyond +1. I think the need for being able to bless an emerging project by acknowledging that its mission and scope are a compliment to OpenStack is clear and this seems like a good way to accomplish that. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
