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

Reply via email to