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)