Open Stack

Armando M. wrote:
> For whom of you is interested in the conversation, the topic was brought
> for discussion at the latest TC meeting [1]. Unfortunately I was unable
> to join, however I would like to try and respond to some of the comments
> made to clarify my position on the matter:
> 
>> ttx: the neutron PTL say he can't vouch for anything in the neutron
> "stadium"
> 
> To be honest that's not entirely my position.
> [...]

I think I should have said "for everything" rather than "for anything" :)

>> flaper87: I agree a driver should not be independent
> 
> Why, what's your rationale? If we dig deeper, some drivers are small
> code drops with no or untraceable maintainers. Some are actively
> developed and can be fairly complex. The spectrum is pretty wide. Either
> way, I think that preventing them from being independent in principle
> may hurt the ones that can be pretty elaborated, and the ones that are
> stale may hurt Neutron's reputation because we're the ones who are
> supposed to look after them (after all didn't we vouch for them??)
> [...]

Yes, I agree with you that the line in the sand (between what should be
independent and what should stay in neutron) should not be based on a
technical classification, but on a community definition. The "big tent"
is all about project teams - we judge if that team follows the OpenStack
way, more than we judge what the team technically produces. As far as
neutron goes, the question is not whether what the team produces is a
plugin or a driver: the question is whether all the things are actually
produced by the same team and the same leadership.

If the teams producing those things overlap so significantly the Neutron
leadership can vouch for them being done by "the neutron project team",
they should stay in. If the subteams do not overlap, or follow different
development practices, or have independent leadership, they are not
produced by "the neutron project team" and should have their own
independent project team.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)