On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >> On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>> To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be >>> given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow >>> diverse enough to get team:diverse-affiliation. >> >> That makes sense and doesn't send the wrong message. I wasn't trying to >> suggest that either; was just pointing out Kevin's numbers are more in >> line with diverse-affiliation than single vendor. My personal thoughts >> are single vendor projects are ok in OpenStack if they are undertaking >> community-building activities to increase their diversity of contributors. > > Basically my position on this is: OpenStack is about providing open > collaboration spaces so that multiple organizations and individuals can > collaborate (on a level playing ground) to solve a set of issues. It's > difficult to have a requirement of a project having a diversity of > affiliation before it can join, because of the chicken-and-egg issue > between visibility and affiliation-diversity. So we totally accept > single-vendor projects as official OpenStack projects. > > But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and > nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project > being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack > ecosystem of projects is limited. It's limited for OpenStack (why > provide resources to support a project that is obviously only beneficial > to one organization ?), and it's limited to the organization itself (why > go through the OpenStack-specific open processes when you could shortcut > it with internal tools and meetings ? why accept the oversight of the > Technical Committee ?).
+1 to track this. > > So the idea is to find a way for projects who realize that they won't > attract a significant share of external contributions to move to an > externally-governed project. I'm not sure we can use a strict deadline > -- some projects might still be single-vendor after a year but without > structurally resisting contributions. But being able to trigger a review > after some time, to assess if we have reasons to think it will improve > in the future (or not), sounds like a good idea. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 The idea of externally-governed projects is very good since there are and will be projects which want the status of being part of "OpenStack" community but cannot have diverse-affiliation due to inherent nature of development/testing/ci or whatsoever requirements. If it remains or is known to remain a single vendor project in its future, it does not need to be dependent on any of the community resources, be it contributors/infrastructure. __________________________________________________________________________ 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