[TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
Team, Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process. Please, review https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/+/787646 Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by "committee" consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ----
Team, Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process. Please, review https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/+/787646 Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/+/787646 Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/+/784622/5/doc/source/process/CoreD...
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.
[1] https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/
-gmann
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
Comments inline
-----Original Message----- From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: openstack-discuss Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ---- > > Team, > Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
Please, review https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78462... [review[.]opendev[.]org]
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.
[ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of Marketplace and Logo trademark program. But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval. That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
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.
[ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including approval of new guidelines. Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval authority to us.
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-op... [openstack[.]org]
-gmann
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:21:43 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ----
Comments inline
-----Original Message----- From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: openstack-discuss Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ---- > > Team, > Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
Please, review https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78462... [review[.]opendev[.]org]
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.
[ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of Marketplace and Logo trademark program. But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval. That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
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.
[ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including approval of new guidelines. Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval authority to us.
Yes, I agree that Board does not need to review the guidelines as such. But here InteropWG will continue to do those as a single ownership body and take help from OpenStack Project Team, OpenStack Technical Committee for any query or so instead of co-owning the guidelines. OpenStack TC can own the test coverage of those which is what we are doing currently but for smooth working, I feel guidelines ownership should be 100% to InteropWG.
-gmann
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-op... [openstack[.]org]
-gmann
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:52 PM Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com wrote:
---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:21:43 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady < Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com> wrote ----
Comments inline
-----Original Message----- From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: openstack-discuss Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady <
Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com> wrote ---- > > Team, > Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
Please, review
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board.
It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from
Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78462... [review[.]opendev[.]org]
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.
[ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of
Marketplace and Logo trademark program.
But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval. That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval
committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
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.
[ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that
it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including approval of new guidelines.
Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval
authority to us.
Yes, I agree that Board does not need to review the guidelines as such. But here InteropWG will continue to do those as a single ownership body and take help from OpenStack Project Team, OpenStack Technical Committee for any query or so instead of co-owning the guidelines. OpenStack TC can own the test coverage of those which is what we are doing currently but for smooth working, I feel guidelines ownership should be 100% to InteropWG.
I agree the TC can impact the guidelines in an advisory role, as could anyone else. Is the concern here that we need technical purview specifically over test guidelines? If yes, could we have a list of interop liaisons (default to PTLs or tact-sig liaisons) from the project teams in this committee instead? The list of these liaisons can be dynamic and informal, and we can discuss guidelines over this ML as we've done in the past.
-gmann
[1]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-op... [openstack[.]org]
-gmann
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present
it to the board.
Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 18:27:24 -0500 Goutham Pacha Ravi gouthampravi@gmail.com wrote ----
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:52 PM Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com wrote: ---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:21:43 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ----
Comments inline
-----Original Message----- From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: openstack-discuss Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ---- > > Team, > Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
Please, review https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78462... [review[.]opendev[.]org]
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.
[ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of Marketplace and Logo trademark program. But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval. That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
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.
[ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including approval of new guidelines. Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval authority to us.
Yes, I agree that Board does not need to review the guidelines as such. But here InteropWG will continue to do those as a single ownership body and take help from OpenStack Project Team, OpenStack Technical Committee for any query or so instead of co-owning the guidelines. OpenStack TC can own the test coverage of those which is what we are doing currently but for smooth working, I feel guidelines ownership should be 100% to InteropWG.
I agree the TC can impact the guidelines in an advisory role, as could anyone else. Is the concern here that we need technical purview specifically over test guidelines? If yes, could we have a list of interop liaisons (default to PTLs or tact-sig liaisons) from the project teams in this committee instead? The list of these liaisons can be dynamic and informal, and we can discuss guidelines over this ML as we've done in the past.
+1. Adding them as liaison is a good idea. Testing guidelines are QA's responsibility which is since starting for 5 services which tests are in Tempest and for adds-on it is Tempest plugins. We can add guidelines' test liaisons as QA PTL (Tempest team) for 5 services and adds-on project PTL for Tempest plugin tests.
-gmann
-gmann
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-op... [openstack[.]org]
-gmann
Will be happy to discuss and provide more details. Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 Round Rock, TX 78682, USA Phone: 512 7204955
So we will reword that TC is advisory with PTLs of advisory and QA as +1/-1 voting for guidelines. Still believe that Refstack PTL and Foundation marketplace owner need to approve guidelines also. Still the same committee but with TC as advisory role on it.
-----Original Message----- From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 7:31 PM To: Goutham Pacha Ravi Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; openstack-discuss Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 18:27:24 -0500 Goutham Pacha Ravi gouthampravi@gmail.com wrote ---- > > > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:52 PM Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com wrote:
---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:21:43 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ---- > > Comments inline > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com > > Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM > > To: Kanevsky, Arkady > > Cc: openstack-discuss > > Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability > > > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > > > ---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady Arkady.Kanevsky@dell.com wrote ---- > > Team, > Based on guidance from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
Please, review https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved by the board. It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
For members who are new to this discussion, please check this https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78764... [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/78462... [review[.]opendev[.]org] > > > > 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.
[ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of Marketplace and Logo trademark program. But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval. That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
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.
[ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including approval of new guidelines. Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval authority to us.
Yes, I agree that Board does not need to review the guidelines as such. But here InteropWG will continue to do those as a single ownership body and take > help from OpenStack Project Team, OpenStack Technical Committee for any query or so instead of co-owning the guidelines. OpenStack TC can own > the test coverage of those which is what we are doing currently but for smooth working, I feel guidelines ownership should be 100% to InteropWG.
I agree the TC can impact the guidelines in an advisory role, as could anyone else. Is the concern here that we need technical purview specifically over test guidelines? If yes, could we have a list of interop liaisons (default to PTLs or tact-sig liaisons) from the project teams in this committee instead? The list of these liaisons can be dynamic and informal, and we can discuss guidelines over this ML as we've done in the past.
+1. Adding them as liaison is a good idea. Testing guidelines are QA's responsibility which is since starting for 5 services which tests are in Tempest and for adds-on it is Tempest plugins. We can add guidelines' test liaisons as QA PTL (Tempest team) for 5 services and adds-on project PTL for Tempest plugin tests.
-gmann
-gmann
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-op... [openstack[.]org] > > > > -gmann > > > > > > > > Will be happy to discuss and provide more details.
Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present it to the board. Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D. SP Chief Technologist & DE Dell Technologies office of CTO > > > Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91 > > > Round Rock, TX 78682, USA > > > Phone: 512 7204955 > > > > > > > > > >
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.
participants (4)
-
Ghanshyam Mann
-
Goutham Pacha Ravi
-
Kanevsky, Arkady
-
Thierry Carrez