Dims, I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this problem via a resolution. That’s why we elected you folks :)
Regards -steve On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote: >Zane, Steve, > >I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to >consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance) > >Thanks, >-- Dims > >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> >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-retire >>>>>me >>>>>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 > > > >-- >Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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