Open Stack

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04/22/2015 02:19 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> > a) Adopt these as repositories under the Neutron project team.
> >
> > In this case, I would see them operating with their own review teams as
> > they do today to avoid imposing additional load on the neutron-core or
> > neutron-specs-core teams.  However, by being a part of the Neutron team,
> > the backend team would submit to oversight by the Neutron PTL.
> >
> > There are some other details to work out to ensure expectations are
> > clearly set for everyone involved.  If this is the path that makes
> > sense, we can work through those as a next step.
>
> Based on the feedback on this thread so far, this seems like the best
> choice.  I said I'd come back with some more proposed details, so here
> we are.  Let me know what seems off or missing here.
>
>
> 1) Process
>
> The process for proposing the move of a repo into openstack/ and under
> the Neutron project is to propose a patch to the openstack/governance
> repository.  For example, if I were proposing moving networking-ovn, I
> would add the following entry under Neutron in reference/projects.yaml:
>
>     - repo: openstack/networking-ovn
>       tags:
>         - name: release:independent
>
> For more information about the release:independent tag (and other
> currently defined tags) see:
>
>     http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/
>
> The Neutron PTL must approve the change.  The TC clarified that once a
> project has been approved (Neutron in this case), the project can add
> additional repos without needing TC approval as long as the added
> repositories are within the existing approved scope of the project.
>
>
>
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/?id=321a020cbcaada01976478ea9f677ebb4df7bd6d
>
>
> 2) Responsibilities
>
> All affected repositories already have their own review teams.  The
> sub-team working on the sub-project is entirely responsible for
> day-to-day development.  That includes reviews, bug tracking, and
> working on testing.
>
> By being included, the project accepts oversight by the TC as a part of
> being in OpenStack, and also accepts oversight by the Neutron PTL.
>
>
> 3) Criteria
>
> As mentioned before, the Neutron PTL must approve the inclusion of each
> additional repository under the Neutron project.  I suggest that the
> primary criteria used should be the same as what the TC uses for new
> OpenStack projects, at least where it makes sense:
>
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
>
> One detail that I expect might be controversial is around maturity.  I
> think it's important that we recognize and embrace that from the very
> beginning of many projects, they are indeed "one of us", even if it's
> early in the development process.  We should *not* be using that as
> entry criteria into what's considered OpenStack.
>
> Instead, we should be looking to define project metadata to help people
> understand what things are, including their features, limitations, and
> maturity level.  The tags system being used by the TC is intended to
> address this at an OpenStack-wide level.  Some additional work could be
> done specific to Neutron, just with a page that lists backends and
> information about them.
>
> Any project that fails to meet the criteria later can be dropped at any
> time.  For example, if some repo is clearly unmaintained, it can be
> removed.
>
>
I'm +1 for all of this. Thanks for driving this Russell!


> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150428/51a2ef37/attachment.html>