[openstack-dev] [ironic] When should a project be under Ironic's governance?

Jay Faulkner jay at jvf.cc
Tue Oct 18 00:02:05 UTC 2016


> On Oct 17, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Michael Turek <mjturek at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello ironic!
> 
> At today's IRC meeting, the questions "what should and should not be a project be under Ironic's governance" and "what does it mean to be under Ironic's governance" were raised. Log here:
> 
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ironic/2016/ironic.2016-10-17-17.00.log.html#l-176
> 
> See http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/ironic.html for a list of projects currently under Ironic's governance.
> 
> Is it as simple as "any project that aides in openstack baremetal deployment should be under Ironic's governance"? This is probably too general (nova arguably fits here) but it might be a good starting point.
> 
> Another angle to look at might be that a project belongs under the Ironic governance when both Ironic (the main services) and the candidate subproject would benefit from being under the same governance. A hypothetical example of this is when Ironic and the candidate project need to release together.
> 
> Just some initial thoughts to get the ball rolling. What does everyone else think?
> 

I think there were a lot of people in the meeting who were confused by what being under governance means. As I understand it, in the strictest sense, it means:
- Project contributors can vote for TC/PTL
- Project has access to cross-project resources
- Access to summit/PTG time (at PTL’s discretion)

However, I get the impression some folks attach additional connotations to this; such as the Ironic core team gaining an implied responsibility to the code or it being seen as a “seal of approval” from Ironic. This means that the primary question at hand to be answered is what does it matter, specifically /in the Baremetal project/ to be included in our governance. Is it simply the benefits provided at a high level by OpenStack, or does it imply additional things. This is the question we have to answer to make a decision about what projects should be under Ironic’s governance and what exactly it means.

Unless there’s more to it than I understand right now, I’d prefer an open-arms approach to projects being in bare metal governance: as long as they’re willing to follow the 4 opens, and are working toward the goals of the Baremetal project, I’d rather have those projects and their contributors as part of our team than not. 

Thanks,
Jay Faulkner


> Thanks,
> Mike Turek
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list