Jay, That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
Regards, -steve On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >The TC has given guidance on this already: > >http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement >.html > >"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of >Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed >within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the >“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe >unofficial projects should be considered deprecated." > >The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects. > >They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common >infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join >the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the >projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository). > >Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects? >Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of >time. > >Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what >the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at >this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place >to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about >that. > >Best, >-jay > >On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >> 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 >> > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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
