On 12/13/2013 10:37 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 13/12/13 15:53 +0100, 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 ? >> > > > My first thought while reading this email was: > > What happens if that "Emerging Technology" doesn't move forward?
Thierry addressed that at the very end of his message: 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. > Will a Program with actual projects exist? (I personally think > this will create some confusion). > > I guess the same thing would happen with incubated projects that > never graduate to integrated. However, the probability this would > happen are way lower. You also make a good point w.r.t ATCs and the > rights to vote. > > -1 from me. I'd be even in favor to not calling any Program > official until there's an integrated *team* - not project - working > on it. Notice that I'm using the term 'team' and not projects. > Programs like 'Documentation' have an integrated team working on it > and are part of every release cycle, the same thing applies for the > "Release Cycle Management" program, etc. We wouldn't create a program without an existing team doing some work already. We even have rules around now programs along side the rules for incubating/graduating projects: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/new-programs-requirements > With the above, I'm basically saying that a Queuing ;) program > shouldn't exist until there's an integrated team of folks working > on queuing. Incubation doesn't guarantees integration and > "emerging technology" doesn't guarantees incubation. Both stages > mean there's interest about that technology and that we're looking > forward to see it being part of OpenStack, period. Each stage > probably means a bit more than that but, IMHO, that's the > 'community' point of view of those stages. > > What if we have a TC-managed* Program incubation period? The > Program won't be managed by the team working on the emerging > technology, nor the team working on the incubated project. Until > those projects don't graduate, the program won't be official nor > will have the 'rights' of other programs. And if the project fits > into another program, then it won't be officially part of it until > it graduates. > > Unless I'm completely wrong about what a program is / should be, > I'm leaning towards -1. > > * I'm sorry, I couldn't come up with a better term for this. :) > > Cheers, FF > > > > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev > mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev