Open Stack

On 24 June 2013 21:50, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> To match with the current state we would end up with:
> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
> Ceilometer, Heat)
> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)

Maybe Programs should have an incubation period, where they show they
have their s***^Wstuff together before being blessed ?

> * There are efforts that span multiple projects but work directly on the
> project code repositories, like integrated release, or stable
> maintenance, or vulnerability management (collectively called for the
> convenience of this thread "horizontal efforts"). Should they be
> considered separate programs (without repos) ? Be lumped together into
> some catch-all "integration" or "production" program ? Or ignored as far
> as ATC status goes ? I've mixed feelings about that. On one hand I'd
> like those efforts visible and official to be more widely seen as a good
> way to contribute to OpenStack. On the other hand it's hard to tie ATC
> membership to those since we can't trace that back to commits to a
> specific repo, and I'd like the programs mission statements to be
> precise rather than vague, so that the TC can bless them...

If a Program has no code repos of it's own, but it's contributors
contribute to other projects, ATC status seems like a two-fold thing.
On the one hand, you want ATC status for individual contributors to
vote for the TC. Check, thats achieved. On the other hand you want ATC
status to vote for the PTL of the Program : that will be harder. As
Monty says, lets revisit. Also, I don't think we have any Program
without a code repo today, so it's a moot point : I suggest saying
that until it is revisited, there cannot be a Program w/o a code repo.


-Rob
-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services