[PowerVMStackers][Winstackers][uc][tc] Encourage to transform from project to SIG
William M Edmonds - email@example.com
edmondsw at us.ibm.com
Mon Apr 8 23:01:44 UTC 2019
Rico Lin wrote:
> Dear PowerVMStackers and Winstackers members
> (This idea is from Thierry, so I'm just helping to trigger discussion here.)
> We now have most of Working Groups migrate to SIGs, so it's
> governance under both TCs and UCs. And to further look through, there
> are some projects are potential SIG meterial.
> PowerVMStackers and Winstackers are two identical targets. They all
> required cross-project works to achieve their mission and kind of
> *special interest* (One for PowerVM, and one for Windows support across
That's great, but these aren't working groups, and never were, and don't really function like working groups or SIGs, so I don't think that really applies here.
> There are two questions I would hope team members from both teams can
> help to answer.
> 1. Is the mission for your project completed?
> 2. Is the team still active?
> 3. Any concerns or objections on moving from project to SIG?
I can see why, at a quick glance, one might think that PowerVMStackers is like a special interest group. The name would certainly imply that. But that's out of historical necessity rather than what's proper. It's really not much like a SIG in what it does.
The three projects that PowerVMStackers contains (nova-powervm, networking-powervm, and ceilometer-powervm) are drivers/agents for nova, neutron, and ceilometer. They should ideally be under the umbrella of those projects, as other drivers/agents are, rather than split out as a PowerVMStackers project or SIG. But sadly, that is not the case due to historical reasons (primarily, the nova cores would not allow the nova powervm driver to be developed within nova like the drivers for Hyper-V, VMware, etc. so we had to create nova-powervm separately to do that development). I assure you that I've never liked that false dichotomy, but it was not our choice. The right thing to do here is to get them under those umbrellas, not to convert PowerVMStackers to a SIG. They need to be developed and managed just like any other OpenStack project producing code... not a SIG.
So we've been working on getting nova-powervm merged into nova to get it under that umbrella. But to do that we have been asked to port functions in piece by piece, which is an arduous process that will take a while yet. So like it or not, I think we're stuck with PowerVMStackers for a while... unless you can convince the nova cores to move nova-powervm under their umbrella (and neutron/ceilometer, but I think that would far less of an issue). They could still use have separate core groups, with some nova/neutron/ceilometer cores joining the *-powervm-cores groups. The ceilometer-powervm project used to be under the ceilometer umbrella before PowerVMStackers was created, and yet had a separate core list. And I think something similar was done with placement separating out of nova. This is a somewhat similar situation, but in reverse... merging into nova rather than separating from it.
Once the driver/agent code is under the nova/neutron/ceilometer umbrellas, then yes, I would 100% agree that there should be a PowerVM SIG driving changes into code under the nova, neutron, and ceilometer umbrellas. But until that happens...
More information about the openstack-discuss