Open Stack

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 <rbryant at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:rbryant at 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