Open Stack

On 20/11/14 04:41, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Joe Gordon wrote:
>> [...]
>> * Appendix 4 Section 3. To play devils advocate here, if the TC goes
>> down the 'big tent small core' model where the TC is only really
>> actively providing direct support for a small core while making space
>> for many other projects in the OpenStack tent, does it make sense to
>> have everyone in the big tent vote in TC elections even if the TC has no
>> impact on their projects? For example if the TC is mostly focusing on
>> nova/cinder/neutron/etc and is just providing a space for project foobar
>> but does not interact with foobar developers or the foobar developers in
>> any meaningful way should foobar developers vote in TC elections, even
>> though the TC doesn't represent them?

I agree this is a potential problem, but not with the bylaws. This is 
why I think projects joining OpenStack need to agree to subject 
themselves to the oversight of the TC (in exchange for voting rights), 
and why the TC needs to get a lot smarter about how it exercises that 
oversight so that it can do so in a meaningful way.

If we're going to make projects formally a part of OpenStack but refuse 
to interact with their developers or grant them representation, then in 
what sense would they be part of OpenStack? What would be the point?

> You're right: it is one of the identified issues with the
> bigtent/smallcore structure proposal -- if we are elected by
> contributors of the "bigtent" but focus on a "smallcore", there may be a
> drift. Some people argued that the "smallcore" still needs to fill the
> needs of the "bigtent", so that still makes sense.
>
> That said, the TC election is governed by the TC Charter, so we have
> some wiggle room there, as long as we use the "ATCs" in the election
> somehow. We used to have PTL seats and directly-elected seats, we could
> have weighted votes or seats purely elected by the smallcore
> contributors in the future if that proves necessary.

Seriously? We have a moderately-large tent (16 services) right now, yet 
if my count is not mistaken only one out of 13 members of the TC has 
ever been core on a project that was not at one time considered in-scope 
for Nova, even though those projects comprise the majority of the 16 
services. The small core hardly seems under-represented.

And y'all seem to have had no trouble starting a serious discussion 
about abandoning the OpenStack mission of building a cloud platform in 
favour of diverting all resources toward building a compute 
virtualisation service and "just providing a space for project foobar 
but ... not interact[ing] with the foobar developers in any meaningful 
way". (Not that there's any consensus on this, but the fact that the 
discussion got this far, seemingly largely without the wider community 
becoming aware, is in itself remarkable.)

So if I were to make a list of issues with TC governance to worry about, 
"too *much* representation from non-compute service projects" would be 
at the very bottom.

cheers,
Zane.