<div dir="ltr"><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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.</span></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all currently integrated projects fit all of them.</div><div>Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Dina</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:47 AM, 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="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 02/05/2014 10:38 PM, Sean Dague wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com" target="_blank">rbryant@redhat.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com" target="_blank">rbryant@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
<br>
In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our<br>
requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated<br>
project. The current version can be found in the governance repo:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements" target="_blank">http://git.openstack.org/cgit/<u></u>openstack/governance/tree/<u></u>reference/incubation-<u></u>integration-requirements</a><br>
<br>
Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects<br>
against the requirements we have set? If not now, when?<br>
<br>
Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a<br>
review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a<br>
specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
<br>
I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the<br>
work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related<br>
issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the<br>
nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for<br>
*starting* the work.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP.<br>
<br>
We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case<br>
by case basis, though.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been<br>
applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are<br>
sane by applying them to existing projects.<br>
<br>
My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during<br>
Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects<br>
need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to<br>
incubating status.<br>
<br>
I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure<br>
out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects.<br>
Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects<br>
that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to<br>
get them in sync.<br>
<br>
From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on<br>
the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our<br>
tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease,<br>
because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the<br>
OpenStack whole is really large.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
+100<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><p style="font-size:small;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica">
Best regards,</p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica">Dina Belova</p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica">Software Engineer</p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica">
Mirantis Inc.</p></div></div>
</div>