Steve, This thread has degenerated. So my request is to use Doug's post as status quo. If there's disagreement then file for a resolution that suits them
-- Dims On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Steven, >> >>Please see response from Doug: >>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki > > Dims, > > Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC? > > I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment > of the problem at hand. > > Clarity has not been reached. I could restate the problem for you if you > like. > >> >>If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution. >> >>Let's stop this thread now please. > > > Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not > the right thing. > > Regards > -steve > >> >>Thanks, >>Dims >> >>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> >>wrote: >>> 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-reti >>>>>>>>re >>>>>>>>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 >> >> >> >>-- >>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 -- 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