Thanks Doug. I didn't pick up on your choice of Zane's point #1. If that is how the rest of the TC feels about it, that wfm. I will be submitting a resolution with your wording so clarity is reached and not lost in a mailing list thread in the future when this issue occurs again.
Regards -steve On 7/28/16, 1:13 PM, "Doug Hellmann" <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: >Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:40:29 +0000: >> >> 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. > >I did not ignore his assessment. If I was not clear, I am saying >that his interpretation #1 is the correct interpretation, that >members of official teams can contribute to repositories that are >not under governance. > >If you disagree with my conclusion or think further action is needed, >then I suggest you formally propose something be added to the TC >agenda. I consider this resolved, but it is well within your rights >as a community member to propose topics for discussion yourself and >I whole-heartedly encourage you to exercise those rights if you >think you are not being heard and that the full TC needs to be >involved to take more formal action. > >To add an agenda item, all you have to do is edit the wiki page [1] >but please note there are some stipulations about timing at the >bottom of the page, so read those first to ensure that your >expectations are set correctly. If you have any known schedule >conflicts, include that information so we can be sure to schedule >the discussion for a week when you can be present to participate. > >Doug > >[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee > >> >> 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-re >>>>>>>>>ti >> >>>>>>>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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
