Open Stack

Sorry, let me not agree with this approach. TripleO is a project under
OpenStack governance. Any project under the governance *must* follow 4
opens [1]. At the same time, if the project happens to be maintained
by a single vendor, it doesn't make it any special from any other
project that has healthy contribution diversity. So community
consensus can't be neglected in my opinion.

While I fully understand that the main contributor of the project is
quitting it and resuming to maintain only some stable branches that
are currently in an Extended Maintenance, until they will be EOLed, I
personally don't think that dropping content/removing later branches
or releases does follow 4 opens. Even though we might not be aware of
contributors willing to step in in further maintenance of the project,
it doesn't mean they won't show up in some time when the word will be
spread.

As Ghanshyam said, the situation we've found ourselves in will be
discussed during the next TC meeting and TC will return back with a
decision on how to proceed with the project deprecation process.

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html

> This is the mailing list thread for discussion. The team is sharing how we'll be contributing to OpenStack moving forward as it relates to TripleO. For single vendor projects made up of community members who are employees of that vendor, as opposed to volunteers, then community consensus is not entirely the contributing factor to the decision. That's not to say that the TripleO community is not in consensus with the decision one way or another. It just means that out of the community members I'm aware of, there are not enough volunteers (or any) to continue maintaining TripleO after Wallaby.
>
> For documentation purposes, I'd say that it's a single vendor project where the vendor is no longer resourcing individuals to continue maintenance of TripleO after Wallaby, and there are as of now, no volunteers to do so. As I said, if some volunteers do come forward, then the plan could change according to how those volunteers are willing to contribute.
>
> --
> -- James Slagle
> --