Open Stack

If it ever becomes necessary for us to pass a resolution to deal with
every disagreement, we might as well all go herd goats.

This is a very straightforward situation, which has been blown out of
all reasonable proportion through well-intentioned but misplaced
concerns.

Please, everyone, let's call it resolved.

Doug

Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:26:37 +0000:
> Dims,
> 
> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
> 
> Regards
> -steve
> 
> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Zane, Steve,
> >
> >I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
> >consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-- Dims
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Jay,
> >>
> >> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
> >> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
> >> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
> >>from
> >> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
> >>with
> >> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
> >>would
> >> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
> >> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
> >> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
> >> OpenStack.
> >>
> >> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
> >> these scenarios in the future.
> >>
> >> The TC has four options as I see it:
> >> 1) do nothing
> >> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
> >> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
> >> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
> >>analysis
> >> and second analysis
> >>
> >> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
> >> Vladimir!).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -steve
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
> >>>
> >>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
> >>>
> >>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
> >>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
> >>>
> >>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
> >>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
> >>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
> >>>
> >>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
> >>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
> >>>orchestration tooling.
> >>>
> >>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
> >>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
> >>>be useful here?
> >>>
> >>>-jay
> >>>
> >>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >>>> Jay,
> >>>>
> >>>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> -steve
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retire
> >>>>>me
> >>>>>nt
> >>>>> .html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
> >>>>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
> >>>>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
> >>>>>the
> >>>>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
> >>>>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
> >>>>>projects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
> >>>>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
> >>>>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
> >>>>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
> >>>>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
> >>>>>of
> >>>>> time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
> >>>>>what
> >>>>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
> >>>>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
> >>>>>place
> >>>>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
> >>>>>about
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> -jay
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
> >>>>>> clarification can solve this situation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> -steve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
> >>>>>>>>participate.
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>__
> >>>>>>>__
> >>>>>>> __
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>_____________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>__
> >>>>>>__
> >>>>>> _
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>______________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>__
> >>>>>__
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________________________________
> >>>>__
> >>>>_
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>________________________________________________________________________
> >>>__
> >>>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
> >>
> >> 
> >>_________________________________________________________________________
> >>_
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
> >
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >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
>