[tc] Feedback on Airship pilot project
Hi TC members, The Airship project will start its confirmation process with the OSF Board of Directors at the Board meeting[1] Tuesday next week. A draft of the slide deck[2] they plan to present is available for reference. Per the confirmation guidelines[3], the OSF Board of directors will take into account the feedback from representative bodies of existing confirmed Open Infrastructure Projects (OpenStack, Zuul and Kata) when evaluating Airship for confirmation. Particularly worth calling out, guideline #4 "Open collaboration" asserts the following: Project behaves as a good neighbor to other confirmed and pilot projects. If you (our community at large, not just TC members) have any observations/interactions with the Airship project which could serve as useful examples for how these projects do or do not meet this and other guidelines, please provide them on the etherpad[4] ASAP. If possible, include a citation with links to substantiate your feedback. If a TC representative can assemble this feedback and send it to the Board (for example, to the foundation mailing list) for consideration before the meeting next week, that would be appreciated. Apologies for the short notice. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html [2] https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-... [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmation... [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback -- Jeremy Stanley
I notice that although the code is released under the Apache license, looking at a conceivable real at-scale deployment one would need to read docs still marked as belonging to AT&T, for example https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap links to https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html which is marked "© Copyright 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. Revision 93aed048." I do not know if this is a problem, per se, but does not seem entirely openstack-like to me. Chris On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
Hi TC members,
The Airship project will start its confirmation process with the OSF Board of Directors at the Board meeting[1] Tuesday next week. A draft of the slide deck[2] they plan to present is available for reference.
Per the confirmation guidelines[3], the OSF Board of directors will take into account the feedback from representative bodies of existing confirmed Open Infrastructure Projects (OpenStack, Zuul and Kata) when evaluating Airship for confirmation.
Particularly worth calling out, guideline #4 "Open collaboration" asserts the following:
Project behaves as a good neighbor to other confirmed and pilot projects.
If you (our community at large, not just TC members) have any observations/interactions with the Airship project which could serve as useful examples for how these projects do or do not meet this and other guidelines, please provide them on the etherpad[4] ASAP. If possible, include a citation with links to substantiate your feedback.
If a TC representative can assemble this feedback and send it to the Board (for example, to the foundation mailing list) for consideration before the meeting next week, that would be appreciated. Apologies for the short notice.
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html [2] https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-... [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmation... [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback
-- Jeremy Stanley
-- Chris Morgan <mihalis68@gmail.com>
Chris, thank you for the feedback. I think it comes from the way how Apache 2.0 license needs to get applied, with a line like described here – [0].
Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
But the concern is valid, and I have submitted a change to get it changed to "Airship Team” – [1]. [0] https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply <https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply> [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689212/ <https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689212/> Best regards, — Roman Gorshunov
On 17 Oct 2019, at 18:10, Chris Morgan <mihalis68@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice that although the code is released under the Apache license, looking at a conceivable real at-scale deployment one would need to read docs still marked as belonging to AT&T, for example
https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap <https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap> links to https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html <https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html>
which is marked "© Copyright 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. Revision 93aed048."
I do not know if this is a problem, per se, but does not seem entirely openstack-like to me.
Chris
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org>> wrote: Hi TC members,
The Airship project will start its confirmation process with the OSF Board of Directors at the Board meeting[1] Tuesday next week. A draft of the slide deck[2] they plan to present is available for reference.
Per the confirmation guidelines[3], the OSF Board of directors will take into account the feedback from representative bodies of existing confirmed Open Infrastructure Projects (OpenStack, Zuul and Kata) when evaluating Airship for confirmation.
Particularly worth calling out, guideline #4 "Open collaboration" asserts the following:
Project behaves as a good neighbor to other confirmed and pilot projects.
If you (our community at large, not just TC members) have any observations/interactions with the Airship project which could serve as useful examples for how these projects do or do not meet this and other guidelines, please provide them on the etherpad[4] ASAP. If possible, include a citation with links to substantiate your feedback.
If a TC representative can assemble this feedback and send it to the Board (for example, to the foundation mailing list) for consideration before the meeting next week, that would be appreciated. Apologies for the short notice.
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html> [2] https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-... <https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-Board.pdf> [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmation... <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines> [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback>
-- Jeremy Stanley
-- Chris Morgan <mihalis68@gmail.com <mailto:mihalis68@gmail.com>>
On 2019-10-17 18:38:15 +0200 (+0200), Roman Gorshunov wrote: [...]
I think it comes from the way how Apache 2.0 license needs to get applied [...]
Well, the Sphinx configuration directive could be considered independent from asserting copyright in individual source files. It's a general blurb which the theme incorporates into the rendered footer of all pages, so if some pages' content are copyrighted by other contributing organizations then the copyright info displayed on that page becomes incorrect. This is why it tends to be simpler to just use a vague copyright entity in the Sphinx config field so that some copyright is asserted/implied, while allowing the individual copyrights of various files to differ from one another. -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2019-10-17 12:10:17 -0400 (-0400), Chris Morgan wrote:
I notice that although the code is released under the Apache license, looking at a conceivable real at-scale deployment one would need to read docs still marked as belonging to AT&T, for example
https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap links to https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
which is marked "© Copyright 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. Revision 93aed048."
I do not know if this is a problem, per se, but does not seem entirely openstack-like to me. [...]
Thanks for pointing this out! It looks like that's coming from here: <URL: https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap/src/commit/93aed048ea0e0247936999436... > In OpenStack we've also not been great about consistency when it comes to the copyright directive in our Sphinx configs. A lot of those indicate "OpenStack Foundation" as the copyright holder, which isn't right either: <URL: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#OpenStack_Foundation_Copyrigh... > But more to the point, trying to express specific copyright in that field is not a good idea anyway, since various files within the documentation source are likely to have copyright from a variety of entities. What's usually worked best is a vague expression like "Airship Contributors" similar to that of oslo.messaging (I picked this example at random because I know the Oslo team tends to pay closer attention to these sorts of details): <URL: https://opendev.org/openstack/oslo.messaging/src/commit/c01b03e87c66e964100d... > It also doesn't help that the copyright holder's legal entity name is actually "AT&T Intellectual Property" rather than just "AT&T" or something, which makes it sound all the more possessive, but that's a corporate legal thing on their end for which we're unlikely to convince them otherwise. -- Jeremy Stanley
participants (3)
-
Chris Morgan
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Roman Gorshunov