Second try -----Original Message----- From: Kanevsky, Arkady Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:08 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [ironic] When should a project be under Ironic's governance?
Fully agree. How do we propose to handle dependency of Ironic version on specific version of a driver? Clearly distros can do it but we will not have a version for user of upstream to use without building it themselves. I am only referring to ironic drivers that do pass CI voting that user expect availability of. Thanks, Arkady -----Original Message----- From: Jim Rollenhagen [mailto:j...@jimrollenhagen.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:37 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] When should a project be under Ironic's governance? On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 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? We discussed this during our contributor's meetup at the summit, and came to consensus in the room, that in order for a repository to be under ironic's governance: * it must roughly fall within the TC's rules for a new project: http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html * it must not be intended for use with only a single vendor's hardware (e.g. a library to handle iLO is not okay, a library to handle IPMI is okay). * it must align with ironic's mission statement: "To produce an OpenStack service and associated libraries capable of managing and provisioning physical machines, and to do this in a security-aware and fault-tolerant manner." * lack of contributor diversity is a chicken-egg problem, and as such a repository where only a single company is contributing is okay. I've proposed this as a docs patch: https://review.openstack.org/392685 We decided we should get consensus from all cores on that patch - meaning 80% or more agree, and any that disagree will still agree to live by the decision. So, cores, please chime in on gerrit. :) Once that patch lands, I'll submit a patch to openstack/governance to shuffle projects around where they do or don't fit. // jim __________________________________________________________________________ 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
