<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Monty Taylor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mordred@inaugust.com" target="_blank">mordred@inaugust.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 07/02/2013 05:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Robert Collins<br>
</div><div class="im">> <<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 2 July 2013 21:32, Thierry Carrez <<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a><br>
</div><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > Thierry Carrez wrote:<br>
> >> """<br>
> >> 'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the<br>
> completion<br>
> >> of our mission. Programs can create any code repository and<br>
> produce any<br>
> >> deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Programs are placed under the oversight of the Technical<br>
> Committee, and<br>
> >> contributing to one of their code repositories grants you ATC status.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Current efforts or teams which want to be recognized as an 'OpenStack<br>
> >> Program' should place a request to the Technical Committee,<br>
> including a<br>
> >> clear mission statement describing how they help the OpenStack<br>
> general<br>
> >> mission and how that effort is essential to the completion of our<br>
> >> mission. If programs have a goal that includes the production of<br>
> >> a server 'integrated' deliverable, that specific project would still<br>
> >> need to go through an Incubation period.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron',<br>
> >> 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer',<br>
> 'Documentation',<br>
> >> 'Infrastructure', 'QA' and 'Oslo'. 'Trove' and 'Ironic' are in<br>
> >> incubation. Those programs should retroactively submit a mission<br>
> >> statement and initial lead designation, if they don't have one<br>
> already.<br>
> >> """<br>
> ><br>
> > Oops. In this variant, Trove and Ironic, as programs, would not be "in<br>
> > incubation" (only one of their deliverables would). That last<br>
> paragraph<br>
> > should be fixed as:<br>
> ><br>
> > """<br>
> > The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron',<br>
> > 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer',<br>
> 'Documentation',<br>
> > 'Infrastructure', 'QA', 'Oslo', 'Trove' and 'Ironic'. Those programs<br>
> > should retroactively submit a mission statement and initial lead<br>
> > designation, if they don't have one already.<br>
> > """<br>
> ><br>
> > Maybe Ironic should be merged into the TripleO program when it's<br>
> considered.<br>
><br>
> Certainly; with our focus on deploy and operations, Ironic is very<br>
> much something we'll care about forever :). OTOH, baremetal machine<br>
> provisioning is a distinct concern from OpenStack deployment and<br>
> operations. I don't know that there is a better place for Ironic; it's<br>
> certainly got significant tentacles into other areas than just Nova<br>
> [hence it being split out in the first place]. Nevertheless : clearly<br>
> Ironic is a Project, and Incubated. I think whether it is incorporated<br>
> into it's own Program, or TripleO, isn't a very interesting question.<br>
> ATC membership is decoupled from things now, so \o/.<br>
><br>
> On proposal 3, I wonder if it makes things too vague : if a Program<br>
> can have one or more integrated Projects, it sort of suggests that<br>
> perhaps Neutron be a Project of the Nova Program?<br>
><br>
><br>
> I like option 3 because it lets us move ahead without having to revisit<br>
> what may just have been an unfortunate narrowness of vision in the<br>
> original charter (who knew we would grow so quickly?). We have been<br>
> letting the projects evolve around feature sets in a way that helps us<br>
> manage code and feature complexity, e.g. breaking networking and block<br>
> storage out of nova. The addition of programs as groups of one or more<br>
> projects is a natural way to manage changes in the community's size and<br>
> complexity as we continue to grow.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I'm fine with this as long as a program can be a group of 0 or more<br>
projects. On the chance that we decide to use the concept to refer to<br>
horizontal efforts (I do not think we need to decide on that right now)<br>
I would hate to be hide-bound and exclude security or release or<br>
translations because they don't have their own repo or project deliverable.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Works for me.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Doug</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>