Open Stack

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 12:15:34 -0400:
> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> > Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> > don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
> > At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
> > functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
> > are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
> > and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
> > these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
> 
> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it 
> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these 
> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.
> 
> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in 
> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each 
> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos 
> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to 
> see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.
> 
> The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only 
> criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of 
> us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and 
> that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject 
> to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy 
> to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good 
> faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely 
> at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)
> 
> The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the 
> (incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has 
> the same interpretation :)
> 
> Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current 
> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the 
> complaints about it look like sour grapes.
> 
> Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current 
> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC 
> oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an 
> official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of 
> said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt 
> to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
> 
> I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify 
> what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.
> 
> cheers,
> Zane.
> 

I think it is a reasonable expectation that teams would want to add
their new repositories to the governance list to have the rights
that go along with that, but I'm not aware of any requirement that
they do so.

Doug