> On Oct 17, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Michael Turek <mjtu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hello ironic! > > At today's IRC meeting, the questions "what should and should not be a > project be under Ironic's governance" and "what does it mean to be under > Ironic's governance" were raised. Log here: > > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ironic/2016/ironic.2016-10-17-17.00.log.html#l-176 > > See http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/ironic.html for a list > of projects currently under Ironic's governance. > > Is it as simple as "any project that aides in openstack baremetal deployment > should be under Ironic's governance"? This is probably too general (nova > arguably fits here) but it might be a good starting point. > > Another angle to look at might be that a project belongs under the Ironic > governance when both Ironic (the main services) and the candidate subproject > would benefit from being under the same governance. A hypothetical example of > this is when Ironic and the candidate project need to release together. > > Just some initial thoughts to get the ball rolling. What does everyone else > think? >
I think there were a lot of people in the meeting who were confused by what being under governance means. As I understand it, in the strictest sense, it means: - Project contributors can vote for TC/PTL - Project has access to cross-project resources - Access to summit/PTG time (at PTL’s discretion) However, I get the impression some folks attach additional connotations to this; such as the Ironic core team gaining an implied responsibility to the code or it being seen as a “seal of approval” from Ironic. This means that the primary question at hand to be answered is what does it matter, specifically /in the Baremetal project/ to be included in our governance. Is it simply the benefits provided at a high level by OpenStack, or does it imply additional things. This is the question we have to answer to make a decision about what projects should be under Ironic’s governance and what exactly it means. Unless there’s more to it than I understand right now, I’d prefer an open-arms approach to projects being in bare metal governance: as long as they’re willing to follow the 4 opens, and are working toward the goals of the Baremetal project, I’d rather have those projects and their contributors as part of our team than not. Thanks, Jay Faulkner > Thanks, > Mike Turek > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
