How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
to be part of the OpenStack tent?
Just curious here...
-jay
On 07/28/2016 02:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Jay,
I'll be frank. I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
tent project. These are not just Kolla developers. These are people from
all over the community. They want something done about it. I agree with
Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would
disappear. We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
disagree with them. This contract is the agreement under which
democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
OpenStack.
In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
these scenarios in the future.
The TC has four options as I see it:
1) do nothing
2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis
and second analysis
I don't wish Mirantis to state anything. Vladimir did that (thanks
Vladimir!).
Regards
-steve
On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
orchestration tooling.
The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
be useful here?
-jay
On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
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-retireme
nt
.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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
