Doug, Zane's analysis is correct. I agree with Zane's assessment that TC clarification can solve this situation.
Regards -steve On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote: >> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I >> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental. >> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing >> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos >> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add >> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all >> these repos are to become a part of Big tent. > >It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it >means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these >differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread. > >The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in >the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each >development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos >that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to >see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith. > >The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only >criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of >us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and >that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject >to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy >to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good >faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely >at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.) > >The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the >(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has >the same interpretation :) > >Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current >designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the >complaints about it look like sour grapes. > >Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current >designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC >oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an >official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of >said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt >to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing. > >I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify >what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo. > >cheers, >Zane. > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
