Excerpts from Zhipeng Huang's message of 2018-04-21 07:06:30 +0800: > As the one who just lead a new project into governance last year, I think I > could take a first stab at it. > > For me the current requirements in general works fine, as I emphasized in > my recent blog [0], the four opens are extremely important. Open Design is > one of the most important out the four I guess, because it actually will > lead to the diversity question. A team with a single vendor, although it > could satisfy all the other three easily, could not have a good open design > rather well. > > Another criteria (more related to the mission statement specifically) I > would consider important is the ability to demonstrate (1)its scope does > not overlap with existing official projects and (2) its ability to actively > work with related projects. The cross project collaboration does not have > to be waited after the project got anointed, rather started when the > project is in conception.
In the past we have had challenges with existing teams having time, energy, or interest in working with new teams. These issues are often, but not always, outside of the control of the new teams. What role can, or should, the TC play in mediating these situations? Doug > > Well I guess that is my two cents :) > > [0] https://hannibalhuang.github.io/ > > > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> > wrote: > > > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking > > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community > > understand their positions before considering how to vote in the > > ongoing election.] > > > > We are discussing adding at least one new project this cycle, and > > the specific case of Adjutant has brought up questions about the > > criteria we use for evaluating new projects when they apply to > > become official. Although the current system does include some > > well-defined requirements [1], it was also designed to rely on TC > > members to use their judgement in some other areas, to account for > > changing circumstances over the life of the project and to reflect > > the position that governance is not something we can automate away. > > > > Without letting the conversation devolve too much into a discussion > > of Adjutant's case, please talk a little about how you would evaluate > > a project's application in general. What sorts of things do you > > consider when deciding whether a project "aligns with the OpenStack > > Mission," for example? > > > > Doug > > > > [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects- > > requirements.html > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Zhipeng (Howard) Huang > > Standard Engineer > IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line > Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd > Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com > Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen > > (Previous) > Research Assistant > Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2 > University of California, Irvine > Email: zhipe...@uci.edu > Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402 > > OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
