Open Stack

Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 10/03/2014 09:18 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>> The prospect of a much larger tent with many more projects in
>> OpenStack-proper shines a spotlight on the scalability of the Docs team,
>> and in particular how they decide which projects are "important" to work
>> on directly.
> 
> I don't believe that a ticket to live under the OpenStack tent should
> come with the expectation that the Docs team is required to write
> documentation for the project.
> 
> IMHO, it should be up to the project itself to provide the resources to
> work *under the guidance* of the Docs team to write developer, end user
> and operator documentation. The Docs team members should be able to play
> an advisory role for new projects, helping them understand the automated
> doc processes, the way that common doc infrastructure works, and
> techniques for writing useful documentation consistent with other projects.

I'd like to generalize that beyond Docs, because the same issue applies
to all other horizontal teams.

There are multiple ways an horizontal team can declare its commitment,
and I agree we should never assume that a TC decision ("new integrated
project!") implies more work for the team ("Docs now has to support this
as well"). That's the way it currently works, and yes, it doesn't scale.
It didn't scale early with Docs, so they opted out of "supporting all
integrated projects" early on.

So in summary:
- ticket to live under the OpenStack big tent should never come with
expectation that any horizontal team will do the work for that project
directly
- horizontal teams may decide to directly do the work for any number of
projects
- corollary #1: horizontal teams may decide to commit to directly doing
the work for a mostly-static "ring0" (or not)
- corollary #2: horizontal teams may decide to not directly do the work
for any project
- horizontal teams should build processes and tools to facilitate and
guide the work of projects in the big tent in their area of expertise

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)