<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Russell Bryant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com" target="_blank">rbryant@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 02/05/2014 11:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:<br>

> (This email is mostly directed to PTLs for programs that include one<br>
> integrated project)<br>
><br>
> The DefCore subcommittee from the OpenStack board of directors asked the<br>
> Technical Committee yesterday about which code sections in each<br>
> integrated project should be "designated sections" in the sense of [1]<br>
> (code you're actually needed to run or include to be allowed to use the<br>
> trademark). That determines where you can run alternate code (think:<br>
> substitute your own private hypervisor driver) and still be able to call<br>
> the result openstack.<br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreDefinition" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreDefinition</a><br>
><br>
> PTLs and their teams are obviously the best placed to define this, so it<br>
> seems like the process should be: PTLs propose designated sections to<br>
> the TC, which blesses them, combines them and forwards the result to the<br>
> DefCore committee. We could certainly leverage part of the governance<br>
> repo to make sure the lists are kept up to date.<br>
><br>
> Comments, thoughts ?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>The process you suggest is what I would prefer.  (PTLs writing proposals<br>
for TC to approve)<br>
<br>
Using the governance repo makes sense as a means for the PTLs to post<br>
their proposals for review and approval of the TC.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">+1</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

Who gets final say if there's strong disagreement between a PTL and the<br>
TC?  Hopefully this won't matter, but it may be useful to go ahead and<br>
clear this up front.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The Board has some say in this, too, right? The proposal [1] is for a set of tests to be proposed and for the Board to approve (section 8). </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">What is the relationship between that test suite and the designated core areas? It seems that anything being tested would need to be designated as core. What about the inverse?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Doug</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
[1] <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreDefinition">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/CoreDefinition</a></div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Russell Bryant<br>
</font></span><div class=""><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>