On 09/17/2018 01:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
New Project Application Process
===============================
We wrapped up Sunday with a discussion of of our process for reviewing
new project applications. Zane and Chris in particular felt the
process for Adjutant was too painful for the project team because
there was no way to know how long discussions might go on and now
way for them to anticipate some of the issues they encountered.
We talked about formalizing a "coach" position to have someone from
the TC (or broader community) work with the team to prepare their
application with sufficient detail, seek feedback before voting
starts, etc.
We also talked about adding a time limit to the process, so that
teams at least have a rejection with feedback in a reasonable amount
of time. Some of the less contentious discussions have averaged
from 1-4 months with a few more contentious cases taking as long
as 10 months. We did not settle on a time frame during the meeting,
so I expect this to be a topic for us to work out during the next
term.
So, to summarize... the TC is back to almost exactly the same point it
was at right before the Project Structure Reform happened in 2014-2015
(that whole Big Tent thing).
The Project Structure Reform occurred because the TC could not make
decisions on whether projects should join OpenStack using objective
criteria, and due to this, new project applicants were forced to endure
long waits and subjective "graduation" reviews that could change from
one TC election cycle to the next.
The solution to this was to make an objective set of application
criteria and remove the TC from the "Supreme Court of OpenStack" role
that new applicants needed to come before and submit to the court's
judgment.
Many people complained that the Project Structure Reform was the TC
simply abrogating responsibility for being a judgmental body.
It seems that although we've now gotten rid of those objective criteria
for project inclusion and gone back to the TC being a subjective
judgmental body, that the TC is still not actually willing to pass
judgment one way or the other on new project applicants.
Is this because it is still remarkably unclear what OpenStack actually
*is* (the whole mission/scope thing)?
Or is this because TC members simply don't want to be the ones to say
"No" to good-meaning people that may have an idea that is only
tangentially related to cloud computing?
Everything old is new again.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
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
