[openstack-dev] [governance] Becoming a Program, before applying for incubation

Doug Hellmann doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Mon Dec 16 21:01:16 UTC 2013

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:

> Flavio Percoco wrote:
> > 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.
> I think your concerns can be covered if we consider that programs
> covering incubated or "promising" projects should also somehow incubate.
> To avoid confusion I'd use a different term, let's say "incoming"
> programs for the sake of the discussion.
> Incoming programs would automatically graduate when one of their
> deliveries graduate to "integrated" status (for projects with such
> deliveries), or when the TC decides so (think: for "horizontal" programs
> like Documentation or Deployment).
> That doesn't change most of this proposal, which is that we'd encourage
> teams to ask to become an (incoming) program before they consider filing
> one of their projects for incubation.

It seems like the implications of the "incoming" designation is the same as
the "emerging" designation you suggested previously. :-)

I like the idea of some sort of acknowledgement that there is a group
working on a solution to a problem and that the solution hasn't reached
sufficient maturity to be an incubated project. I prefer the name
"emerging" over "incoming" but not strongly.

The status of a fledgeling program in this state should be re-evaluated
periodically, as we do with incubated projects, so I don't see a problem
with creating such "working groups" (maybe that's a better name?) when
there is sufficient interest and participation early on. I do like the idea
of asking them to produce *something* -- a design doc, requirements list,
some sort of detailed plan for doing whatever the program's mission would
be -- before being granted this new official designation, to show that the
people involved are prepared to spend time and effort, more than just
saying "yes, I'm interested, too".

> FWIW we already distinguish (on
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Programs) programs that are born out of
> an incubated project from other programs, so adding this "incoming"
> status would not change much.
> > 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.
> I don't think an "Emerging Technologies" program would make sense, since
> that would just be a weird assemblage of separate teams (how would that
> program elect a PTL ?). I prefer that they act as separate teams (which
> they are) and use the "incoming Program" concept described above.


> > 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.
> So *that* would be a change from where we stand today, which is that
> incubated project contributors get ATC status and vote on TC elections.
> We can go either way, consider "incoming programs" to be "OpenStack
> programs" in the sense of the TC charter, or not.
> I'm not convinced there is so much value in restricting TC voting access
> (or ATC status) to "OpenStack programs". Incoming programs would all be
> placed under the authority of the TC so it's only fair that they have a
> vote. Also giving them ATC status gets them automatically invited to
> Design Summits, and getting "incoming" programs in Design Summits sounds
> like a good thing to do...

Right, bringing them to the summits is a big goal, isn't it?


> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131216/de4be3c6/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list