Open Stack

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 14:14 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Good points, I'll try to further delineate where I see differences.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Anne,
> > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 08:17 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >>  there should be an end-result for an Incubation period to result
> >> in a final destination that is not related to all the current
> >> privileges given to Core projects.
> >
> > I think this is the bit where you're really trying to make a different
> > proposal, but I don't fully understand it.
> >
> > My motion basically says that the end-resource of Incubation is "part of
> > the OpenStack releases" or "not part of the OpenStack releases".
> >
> > What other end-result do you see?
> 
> There will be projects that are released together that we all talk
> about every week at the project meeting and at twice-annual in-person
> events. These are called "nuclear" -- and "core" projects are also
> welcomed to be part of the OpenStack release umbrella but will not get
> all the associated privileges that three "nuclear" goals have -
> compute, network, storage. Perhaps I am trying to define IaaS with
> simpler terms since I don't have all the verbiage for defining
> infrastructure.
> 
> The process would be -- those projects not specifically "nuclear" will
> have a different set of requirements to be called "core." Those
> projects in "incubation" will be promoted to "core" if they meet the
> requirements to be called "core" and "core" drops the trademark
> connotation but does get other privileges, yet to be defined in the
> details.

Ok, we can put aside the "trademark projects list" thing for a moment
since you're also in favour of leaving that completely up to the Board,
assuming the list is a subset of list of projects accepted into the
OpenStack release by the TC.

I think what you're proposing then is to:

  1) Create a new category called "nuclear"

  2) Move nova, swift, glance, cinder and quantum (keystone too?) into
     this category

  3) Everything else - e.g. horizon, ceilometer, heat - would be in the 
     "core" category

  4) The end-result of a positive incubation is being accepted into core

  5) We somehow treat nuclear and core projects differently during 
     development

The bit I'm unclear about is (5) - exactly what are we talking about?
Perhaps the release management, vulnerability management or stable
branch teams would ignore these projects?

Or, perhaps it's closer to your own heart? That the docs team wouldn't
feel they were being forced into committing to fully documenting those
projects?

I don't like the idea of second-class projects, but I'm sympathetic to
the docs issue. I'd like to think the number of docs contributors would
grow as new projects are added (i.e. people from those projects would
contribute to the docs). Perhaps full docs coverage would be a
requirement to graduate from Incubation?

If we dug into the details of (5) a bit more, it definitely would be a
fine motion for the TC to vote on.

Cheers,
Mark.