[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-11

Chris Dent cdent+os at anticdent.org
Tue Mar 13 15:10:02 UTC 2018

html: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-11.html

Much of the activity of the TC in the past week has been devoted to
discussing and sometimes arguing about two pending resolutions:
Location of Interop Tests and Extended Maintenance (links below).
While there has been a lot of IRC chat, and back and forth on the
gerrit reviews, it has resulted in things moving forward.

Since I like to do this: a theme I would identify from this week's
discussions is continued exploration of what the TC feels it can and
should assert when making resolutions. This is especially apparent
in the discussions surrounding Interop Tests. The various options
run the gamut from describing and enforcing many details, through
providing a limited (but relatively clear) set of options, to
letting someone else decide.

I've always wanted the TC to provide enabling but not overly
limiting guidance that actively acknowledges concerns.

# Location of Interop Tests

There are three reviews related to the location of the Interop
Tests (aka Trademark Tests):

* [A detailed one, based on PTG discussion](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521602/)
* [A middle of the road one, simplifying the first](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/550571/)
* [A (too) simple one](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/550863/)

It's looking like the middle one has the most support now, but that
is after a lot of discussion. On
I introduced the middle of the road version to make sure the
previous discussion was represented in a relatively clear way. Then
a version which effectively moves responsibility to the InteropWG.

Throughout this process there have been [hidden
whereby this minor(?) crisis in policy is being used to attempt to
address shortcomings in the bigger picture. It's great to be working
on the bigger picture, but hidden doesn't sound like the right

# Tracking TC Goals

One of the outcomes from the PTG was an awareness that some
granular and/or middle-distance TC goals tend to get lost. The TC is
[going to try to use
to track these sort of things. The hope is that this will result in
more active and visible progress.

# Extended Maintenance

A proposal to [leave branches open for
patches](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/548916/) for longer has
received at least as much attention as the Interop discussions.

Some talk [starts on Thursday
and then carries on intermittently for the rest of time^w^w^w^w^wthrough
today. The review has a great deal of interaction as well.

There's general agreement on the principal ("let's not limit people
from being able to patch branches for longer") but reaching
consensus on the details has been more challenging. Different people
have different goals.

# What's a SIG for?

about [renaming](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/551413/) the
recently [named PowerStackers
group](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/540165/) eventually
migrated into talking about what [SIGs are for or
There seems to be a few different interpretations, with some

* [Upstream and downstream
   or "breadth of potential paricipants".
* [Not focused on producing
* [Different people in the same
* [In problem space rather than solution

None of these are really complete. I think of SIGs as a way to break
down boundaries, provide forums for discussion and make progress
without worrying too much about bureaucracy. We probably don't need
to define them to death.

Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list