[openstack-dev] [tc][all] Missing answers on Pike release goals
doug at doughellmann.com
Tue May 23 15:05:03 UTC 2017
Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2017-05-23 08:58:08 -0500:
> > >
> > > - Is it that the reporting process is too heavy ? (requiring answers
> > > from projects that are obviously unaffected)
> > I've thought about this, OSC was unaffected by one of the goals but
> > not the other, so I can't really hide in this bucket. It really is
> > not that hard to put up a review saying "not me".
> > > - Is it that people ignore the deadlines and missed the reminders ?
> > > (some unaffected project teams also do not do releases, and therefore
> > > ignore the release countdown emails)
> > In my case, not so much "ignore" but "put off until tomorrow" where
> > tomorrow turned in to 6 weeks. I really don't have a hard reason
> > other than simply not prioritizing it because I knew one of the goals
> > was going to take some coordination work
> +1 - this has been my case, unfortunately.
> A patch submission has the feeling of a major thing that goes through
> a lot of process (at least still in my head). I wonder if we would be
> better off tracking some of this through a wiki page or even an
> etherpad, with just the completion of the goal being something
> submitted to the repo. Then it would be really easy to update at any
> point with notes like "WIP patch put up but still working on it" along
> the way.
The review process for this type of governance patch is pretty light
(they fall under the one-week-no-objections house rule), but I
decided to use a patch instead of the wiki specifically because it
allows for feedback. We've had several cases where teams didn't
provide enough detail or didn't think a goal applied to them when
it did (deploying with WSGI came up at least once). Wiki changes
can be tracked, but if someone has a question they have to go track
down the author in some other venue to get it answered.
I also didn't want teams to have to keep anything up to date during
the cycle, because I didn't want this to be yet another "status
report". Each goal needs at most 2 patches: one at the start of the
cycle to acknowledge and point to whatever other artifacts are being
used for tracking the work already, and then one at the end of the
cycle to indicate how much of the work was completed and what the
next steps are. We tied the process deadlines to existing deadlines
when we thought teams would already be thinking of these sorts of
topics (most teams have spec deadlines around milestone 1 and then
everyone has the same release date at the end of the cycle).
> > > - Is it that in periods of resource constriction, having release-wide
> > > goals is just too ambitious ? (although anecdotal data shows that most
> > > projects have already completed their goals)
> > While this may certainly be a possibility, I don't think we should
> > give in to the temptation to blame too much on losing people. OSC was
> > hit by this too, yet the loss of core and contributors did not affect
> > the goals not getting done, that falls squarely on the PTL in this
> > case.
> > > - Is it that the goals should be more clearly owned by the community
> > > beyond just the TC? (and therefore the goals should be maintained in a
> > > repository with simpler approval rules and a larger approval group)
> > I do think that at least the perception of the goals being community
> > things should be increased if we can. We fall in to the problem of
> > the TC proposing something and getting pushback about projects being
> > forced to do more work, yet we hear so much about how the TC needs to
> > take more leadership in technical direction (see TC vision feedback
> > for the latest round of this).
> > I'm not sure that the actual repo is the issue, are we having problems
> > getting reviews to approve these? I don't see this but I'm also not
> > tracking the time to takes for them to get approved.
> > I believe it is just going to have to be a social thing that we need
> > to continue to push forward.
> What if we also require +1 from the "core six" projects on goal proposals?
> If we at least have buy in from those projects, then we can know that we
> should be able to get them as a minimum, with other projects more than
> likely to then follow suit.
Because we do not want to structure our governance in such a way that
some projects are more equal than others.
Everyone in the community has an opportunity to respond to the goals
through the review process. If we don't trust the TC to take those
responses into account, then we might as well drop the whole idea of
More information about the OpenStack-dev