Open Stack

On 13/12/13 16:37 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>On 13/12/13 15:53 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>TL;DR:
>>Incubation is getting harder, why not ask efforts to apply for a new
>>program first to get the visibility they need to grow.
>>
>>Long version:
>>
>>Last cycle we introduced the concept of "Programs" to replace the
>>concept of "Official projects" which was no longer working that well for
>>us. This was recognizing the work of existing teams, organized around a
>>common mission, as an integral part of "delivering OpenStack".
>>Contributors to programs become ATCs, so they get to vote in Technical
>>Committee (TC) elections. In return, those teams place themselves under
>>the authority of the TC.
>>
>>This created an interesting corner case. Projects applying for
>>incubation would actually request two concurrent things: be considered a
>>new "Program", and give "incubated" status to a code repository under
>>that program.
>>
>>Over the last months we significantly raised the bar for accepting new
>>projects in incubation, learning from past integration and QA mistakes.
>>The end result is that a number of promising projects applied for
>>incubation but got rejected on maturity, team size, team diversity, or
>>current integration level grounds.
>>
>>At that point I called for some specific label, like "Emerging
>>Technology" that the TC could grant to promising projects that just need
>>more visibility, more collaboration, more crystallization before they
>>can make good candidates to be made part of our integrated releases.
>>
>>However, at the last TC meeting it became apparent we could leverage
>>"Programs" to achieve the same result. Promising efforts would first get
>>their mission, scope and existing results blessed and recognized as
>>something we'd really like to see in OpenStack one day. Then when they
>>are ready, they could have one of their deliveries apply for incubation
>>if that makes sense.
>>
>>The consequences would be that the effort would place itself under the
>>authority of the TC. Their contributors would be ATCs and would vote in
>>TC elections, even if their deliveries never make it to incubation. They
>>would get (some) space at Design Summits. So it's not "free", we still
>>need to be pretty conservative about accepting them, but it's probably
>>manageable.
>>
>>I'm still weighing the consequences, but I think it's globally nicer
>>than introducing another status. As long as the TC feels free to revoke
>>Programs that do not deliver the expected results (or that no longer
>>make sense in the new world order) I think this approach would be fine.
>>
>>Comments, thoughts ?
>>
>
>
>With the above, I'm basically saying that a Queuing ;) program
>shouldn't exist until there's an integrated team of folks working on
>queuing. Incubation doesn't guarantees integration and "emerging
>technology" doesn't guarantees incubation. Both stages mean there's
>interest about that technology and that we're looking forward to see
>it being part of OpenStack, period. Each stage probably means a bit
>more than that but, IMHO, that's the 'community' point of view of
>those stages.
>
>What if we have a TC-managed* Program incubation period? The Program
>won't be managed by the team working on the emerging technology, nor
>the team working on the incubated project. Until those projects don't
>graduate, the program won't be official nor will have the 'rights' of
>other programs. And if the project fits into another program, then it
>won't be officially part of it until it graduates.
>


Since I, most likely, won't make it to tomorrow's TC meeting, I'd like
to extend this argument a bit more and make sure I share my thoughts
about it. Hopefully they'll be of help.

What I'm arguing here is:

1. Programs that are not part of OpenStack's release cycle shouldn't
be considered official nor they should have the rights that integrated
projects have.

2. I think requesting Programs to exist at the early stages of the
project is not necessary. I don't even think incubated projects should
have programs. I do agree the project's mission and goals have to be
clear but the program should be officially created *after* the project
graduates from incubation.

The reasoning here is that anything could happen during incubation.
For example, a program created for project A - which is incubated -
may change to cover a broader mission that will allow a newborn
project B to fall under its umbrella, hence my previous proposal of
having a incubation stage for programs as well.

My proposal is to either not requesting any program to be created for
incubated projects / emerging technologies or to have a program called
'Emerging Technologies' were all these projects could fit in. The only
difference is that, IMHO, projects under this program should not have
all the rights that integrated projects and other programs have,
although the program will definitely fall under the TCs authority. For
example, projects under this program shouldn't be able to vote on the
TCs elections.

Hope this make sense and that is of help during the upcoming
discussions.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131216/0beca236/attachment.pgp>