Open Stack

On 07/29/2016 04:55 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> One of the outcomes of the discussion at the leadership training
> session earlier this year was the idea that the TC should set some
> community-wide goals for accomplishing specific technical tasks to
> get the projects synced up and moving in the same direction.
> 
> After several drafts via etherpad and input from other TC and SWG
> members, I've prepared the change for the governance repo [1] and
> am ready to open this discussion up to the broader community. Please
> read through the patch carefully, especially the "goals/index.rst"
> document which tries to lay out the expectations for what makes a
> good goal for this purpose and for how teams are meant to approach
> working on these goals.
> 
> I've also prepared two patches proposing specific goals for Ocata
> [2][3].  I've tried to keep these suggested goals for the first
> iteration limited to "finish what we've started" type items, so
> they are small and straightforward enough to be able to be completed.
> That will let us experiment with the process of managing goals this
> time around, and set us up for discussions that may need to happen
> at the Ocata summit about implementation.
> 
> For future cycles, we can iterate on making the goals "harder", and
> collecting suggestions for goals from the community during the forum
> discussions that will happen at summits starting in Boston.
> 
> Doug
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/349068 describe a process for managing community-wide goals
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/349069 add ocata goal "support python 3.5"
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/349070 add ocata goal "switch to oslo libraries"

I like the direction this is headed. And I think for the test items, it
works pretty well.

I'm trying to think about how we'd use a model like this to support
something a little more abstract such as making upgrades easier. Where
we've got a few things that we know get in the way (policy in files,
rootwrap rules, paste ini changes), as well as validation, as well as
configuration changes. And what it looks like for persistently important
items which are going to take more than a cycle to get through.

Definitely seems worth giving it a shot on the current set of items, and
see how it fleshes out.

My only concern at this point is it seems like we're building nested
data structures that people are going to want to parse into some kind of
visualization in RST, which is a sub optimal parsing format. If we know
that people want to parse this in advance, yamling it up might be in
order. Because this mostly looks like it would reduce to one of those
green/yellow/red checker boards by project and task.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net