<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Thierry Carrez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org" target="_blank">thierry@openstack.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><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 class="">Joe Gordon wrote:<br>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Thierry Carrez <<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi, fellow TC members,<br>
><br>
> After a noisy ML thread, opinionated blogposts, and strawmen on Gerrit,<br>
> we are at a stage where we seek potential convergence between TC members<br>
> around a common proposal (before we put it in words and RFC to the wider<br>
> community). This phase started as informal in-person discussions in<br>
> Paris, and we set up TC 5-members hangouts (2 so far) to continue that<br>
> discussion over a high-bandwidth medium. This email summarizes the<br>
> progress so far for everyone to know.<br>
><br>
> Note that there is little point in commenting on this thread, the<br>
> discussion is still very much at its early stages and we don't know yet<br>
> what the final proposal will be (nor if it will be truly consensual<br>
> amongst the TC members). At this point I prefer we continue to solidify<br>
> it in high-bandwidth discussions between TC members.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I know you said there is little point in commenting on this thread, but<br>
> I do have one comment to add anyway.<br>
><br>
> While I am excited to see the TC working towards a collective opinion.<br>
> There is one group that I would really like to hear from in this debate,<br>
> the ATC community (including stackforge) as a whole. IMHO TC members<br>
> and active community members alike are too close to the problem to see<br>
> all perspectives. Furthermore I don't know what the most common<br>
> opinion(s) is on project structure reform.<br>
><br>
> To that end, I would like to propose polling ATC members to get some<br>
> rough numbers on where the community as a whole stands on this issue.<br>
> Based on the summary below it looks like project structure reform has<br>
> now been broken down into several smaller concrete questions, perhaps we<br>
> can take those and turn them into a poll. The results of this poll would<br>
> naturally be non-binding and only there to help the TC converge on a<br>
> solution.<br>
<br>
</div></div>At this point the "concrete questions" are just artifacts in the<br>
difficult and long process of converging to a potential solution, so I<br>
think it's too early to poll. We haven't even included all TC members in<br>
that discussion yet, and some points are very likely to completely<br>
disappear at the next iteration. I posted this status report for<br>
transparency, but it is far from being anything solid yet. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fair enough, these may not be the right questions.</div><div> </div><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">
<br>
There have been a number of proposals posted already (in blog posts, on<br>
Gerrit), but mostly by individuals. This exercise is to see if there<br>
could be a middle ground between those individual proposals. I'm<br>
optimistic that there can be (since I would hate to come down to a close<br>
vote on such an important issue), but I fear that polling on<br>
intermediate steps of that discussion will only disrupt that delicate<br>
process and bring us back to a polarized debate where no one will bulge.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>True, but if the TC agrees on something and valid concerns are raised, then we may be back at square one anyway.</div><div> </div><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"> </blockquote><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">
<br>
I'm hoping we can get to something we can propose and RFC on by the end<br>
of this month.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Part of the difficulty for me, is answering the question: "Why do we need project structure reform?" I have a few possible answers, but without knowing the "why" its very hard for me to understand the "how." I have asked several TC members and have gotten back several great but different answers. I was thinking more about basic background questions versus a full proposal to RFC on.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I was thinking of a few questions along these lines:</div><div><br></div><div>1) Why is project structure reform needed (select all that are applicable)?</div><div> - Allow competition inside of OpenStack; projects duke it out inside of the OpenStack banner before picking a winner</div><div> - Promote diversity inside of OpenStack; not everything is one size fits all</div><div> - Make the process to approve new projects smoother for everyone involved</div><div> - The TC is unable to actively govern all of OpenStack projects equally, and this only gets worse over time</div><div> - Too hard to determine the quality of projects in OpenStack</div><div> - Companies won't contribute to stackforge projects, and will only contribute to OpenStack projects</div><div> - Help horizontal teams scale better</div><div> - Stop gating everything on everything else</div><div> - Other: _______________</div><div> - It's not, I am happy with the current project structure</div><div><br></div><div><div>2) Do you think OpenStack re-invents the wheel too often?</div><div> - Yes</div><div> - No</div></div><div><br></div><div><div>3) Should OpenStack do a better job of promoting an ecosystem around things in the OpenStack namespace? Projects that aren't in 'OpenStack' but work well with or on OpenStack.</div><div> - Yes</div><div> - No</div></div><div><br></div><div>4) Should OpenStack significantly grow the number of projects in the OpenStack namespace?</div><div> - Yes</div><div> - No</div><div><br></div><div>5) Is there anything on the OpenStack namespace that you don't use because you are using something else outside of the OpenStack namespace instead?</div><div> - Yes</div><div> - No</div><div><br></div><div>6) If Yes to 5, what and why?</div><div>_________________</div><div><br></div><div>7) How do you tell if a OpenStack project is production ready (select all that are applicable)?</div><div>- If its part of the integrated release or not.</div><div>- If its packaged</div><div>- If its deployed in a public cloud</div><div>- If my vendor supports it</div><div>- Other: ______________________________</div><div> </div><div><br></div><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 class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>