Open Stack

Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> With my TC hats on, I am not so clear about the new 'Joint Committee' proposal. As per the bylaws of the Foundation, section 4.1(b)(iii))[1],
> all the capabilities must be a subset of the OpenStack Technical Committee, which is what we have in the current process. All interop
> capabilities are discussed with the project teams (for which trademark program is) under OpenStack TC and QA (Tempest + Tempest plugins)
> provides the test coverage and maintenance of tests.
> 
> In the new process, making TC a decision making and co-ownership group in Interop WG is not very clear to me. InteropWG is a Board's working
> group and does not come under the OpenStack TC governance as such. Does the new process mean we are adding InteropWG under TC? or under
> the joint ownership of Board and TC?
> 
> What I see as InteropWG is, a group of people working on the trademark program and all technical help can be asked from the OpenInfra project
> (OpenStack) to draft the guidelines and test coverage/maintenance. But keep all the approval and decision-making authority to InteropWG or Board.
> This is how it is currently. Also, we can keep encouraging the community members to join this group to fill the required number of resources.

Yes I also had reservations about the approval committee, while trying 
to see who on Foundation staff would fill the "Foundation marketplace 
administrator" seat -- I posted them on the review.

We have Foundation resources helping keeping the marketplace in sync 
with the trademark programs, and I think it's great that they are 
involved in the Interop workgroup. But I'm not sure of their added value 
when it comes to *approving* technical guidelines around OpenStack 
capabilities.

For me, which technical capabilities to include is a discussion between 
the technical (which capabilities are technically mature, as provided by 
the TC or their representatives) and the ecosystem (which capabilities 
are desirable to create interoperability around, as provided by the 
Board of Directors or their representatives).

This can be done in two ways: using a single committee with TC and Board 
representation, or as a two-step process (TC proposes, Board selects 
within that proposal). My understanding is that Arkady is proposing we 
do the former, to simplify overall process. I think it can work, as long 
as everyone is clear on their role... I'm just unsure this committee 
should include a "Foundation marketplace administrator" veto seat.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)