Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On 02/06/2014 09:14 AM, Sergey Lukjanov wrote: Probably all PTLs could be asked to prepare initial report for requirements like it was done last time for graduating projects. Yes, that sounds reasonable and would likely help the process along. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On 02/06/2014 08:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Dina Belova wrote: Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ? Sounds good to me. How about we do them in the order you specified. I'll go ahead and put together a wiki page that discusses the state of Nova against the requirements to help the review along. John and Mark, do you think you could do the same for Cinder/Neutron at some point in the next couple weeks? -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.commailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/06/2014 08:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Dina Belova wrote: Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ? Sounds good to me. How about we do them in the order you specified. I'll go ahead and put together a wiki page that discusses the state of Nova against the requirements to help the review along. John and Mark, do you think you could do the same for Cinder/Neutron at some point in the next couple weeks? Yep. I have some time to put together a wiki page for this. mark ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
Dina Belova wrote: Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. +1, good idea On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Dina Belova wrote: Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
Probably all PTLs could be asked to prepare initial report for requirements like it was done last time for graduating projects. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Dina Belova dbel...@mirantis.com wrote: I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. +1, good idea On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Dina Belova wrote: Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC, so that we give this new review's process some mileage. So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Sincerely yours, Sergey Lukjanov Savanna Technical Lead Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting* the work. Doug -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting* the work. Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP. We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case by case basis, though. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting* the work. Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP. We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case by case basis, though. First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are sane by applying them to existing projects. My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to incubating status. I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects. Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to get them in sync. From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease, because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the OpenStack whole is really large. -Sean -- Sean Dague Samsung Research America s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
On 02/05/2014 10:38 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting* the work. Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP. We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case by case basis, though. First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are sane by applying them to existing projects. My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to incubating status. I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects. Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to get them in sync. From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease, because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the OpenStack whole is really large. +100 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements
Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them. Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap. Dina On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote: On 02/05/2014 10:38 PM, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote: Greetings, In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated project. The current version can be found in the governance repo: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/ reference/incubation-integration-requirements Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects against the requirements we have set? If not now, when? Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled. Thoughts? I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting* the work. Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP. We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case by case basis, though. First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are sane by applying them to existing projects. My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to incubating status. I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects. Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to get them in sync. From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease, because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the OpenStack whole is really large. +100 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
