On 28/07/16 14:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Zane,
I don't understand why you're directing this reply to me. I *just* made
clear that I don't have any interest one way or the other.
There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
on the ML. I personally was helpful to some extent with the beginnning
of kolla-kubernetes.
So i don't think it's a lack of communication that's to blame.
AFAICT this has nothing to do with my point that this thread is a *train
wreck* where everyone is talking past each other.
Also at no time did I ever refer to a "lack of communication".
Also if you see the repos, there's not much there... In effect they
are starting from scratch knowingly.
As I said, I don't have a horse in this race and I don't actually care.
I'm just trying to explain each side's position to the other in the hope
that they'll stop arguing.
But if you wish as i said before, please do file a TC resolution and
let's see where it goes.
I wouldn't know which one to file (although Doug's response suggests
it's interpretation 1). Besides, I already did my good deed for the day
and got attacked for my trouble.
As Steven said before "We are all adults and can live by the rules,
even if we disagree with them"
I don't even disagree with *either* rule. I'm merely trying to point out
that different but unexamined opinions on what the rule is leads to bad
discussions.
cheers,
Zane.
Thanks,
Dims
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes 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 word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
of 'team'.
So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)
What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
and we would all be happier :)
The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
official projects should have unofficial repos applies.
Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
(naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)
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.
My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
again?
cheers,
Zane.
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
