Open Stack

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 13:19 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > Here's a first attempt at a "direction motion" for the TC to vote on:
> > >
> > >   The concepts of "what is core" and "what is in OpenStack" have been
> > >   conflated until now. The TC cares far more about the process for new
> > >   projects to be included in the coordinated release than it cares
> about
> > >   which projects are required to be used by providers in order to
> access
> > >   the trademark.
> >
> > That's the main point for me. By separating the two issues ("what is
> > developed within openstack" and "what is core openstack"), we clearly
> > separate what is BoD responsibility and what is TC responsibility, which
> > is a great way to avoid conflict between the two governance bodies
> > (which is what we are being asked to proactively resolve here).
>
> Yep.
>
> > >   We would like to take an inclusive but measured approach to accepting
> > >   new OpenStack projects. We should evaluate any given proposed project
> > >   on whether it embraces our values and processes, is useful to
> > >   OpenStack users, well integrated with other projects and represents a
> > >   sensible broadening of the scope of OpenStack.
> >
> > Note that this still doesn't give crystal-clear guidelines on how to
> > judge what is promising/complementary/useful. Even if we don't have to
> > care about trademark anymore, we might still need to come up with more
> > defined guidelines for acceptation than personal gut feeling...
>
> Absolutely - the TC needs to make those criteria very clear. A starting
> point might be what I wrote up in the footnote of this mail:
>
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-November/002470.html
>
> However, I think those criteria are the responsibility of the TC. We
> just need to explain to the Board the rough idea we have for these
> criteria. Details can come later.
>
> > >   We see Incubation as a trial period where promising projects have the
> > >   opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for inclusion in our
> > >   coordinated releases.
> >
> > A consequence of that is we would judge if the project scope is
> > promising/complementary/useful for OpenStack at the moment the project
> > applies for incubation. And we would promote it out of incubation if it
> > matured enough to be included in the full next release cycle. I
> > personally think that's OK (removes the risk of following the whole
> > incubation process for nothing).
>
> Yep.
>
> > >   We see the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of the
> > >   bylaws as being solely related to trademark guidelines. We would be
> > >   happy to see the term "Core" fall into disuse and for the Foundation
> > >   to simply maintain a list of projects required for trademark usage.
> >
> > I'm not sure we should recommend that the "Core" term falls into disuse.
> > If the BoD wants to keep using "Core" as meaning "part of the
> > coordinated release AND required for trademark use" (which is what the
> > bylaws say, emphasis is mine), then I'm perfectly OK with it.
>
> Yeah, me too. Mostly.
>
> However, changing the commonly understood definition of a term can be
> harder than just dropping the term and adopting a new term with the new
> definition.
>
> > What I think we actually want is to redefine "OpenStack projects" as
> > being "Services + Library + Gating + Supporting" (instead of Core +
> > Library + Gating + Supporting), with "OpenStack Services" being the
> > projects sharing the same release cycle. Have incubation be the trial
> > period to prove you can become an official OpenStack Service. Then let
> > the BoD pick which of those "OpenStack projects" they want to consider
> > "core" for trademark use.
>
> Do we really need to have these classifications in the bylaws?
>
> The set of "OpenStack projects" is whatever the TC chooses to include.
> We may classify those projects, but a new project doesn't have to fit
> into an existing class to be accepted.
>
> i.e. if a new project comes along that doesn't nicely fit into the
> "Services" class, I don't think we necessarily need to revisit all this
> again with the Board.
>
> How does this update sound?
>
>   The concepts of "what is core" and "what is in OpenStack" have been
>   conflated until now. The TC cares far more about the process for new
>   projects to be included in the coordinated release than it cares about
>   which projects are required to be used by providers in order to access
>   the trademark.
>
>   We would like to take an inclusive but measured approach to accepting
>   new OpenStack projects. We should evaluate any given proposed project
>   on a well defined set of criteria like whether it embraces our values
>   and processes, is useful to OpenStack users, well integrated with
>   other projects and represents a sensible broadening of the scope of
>   OpenStack.
>
>   We see Incubation as a trial period where promising projects have the
>   opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for inclusion in our
>   coordinated releases.
>
>   We see the term "Core OpenStack Project" in section 4.1.b of the
>   bylaws as being solely related to trademark guidelines. The Foundation
>   should simply maintain a list of projects required for trademark
>   usage. We would be happy for that list to be called "Core Projects"
>   or for a new name to be chosen to describe that list.
>

I like it, and I think it accurately reflects what was discussed earlier.

Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121114/e1fca039/attachment.html>