Open Stack

John Dickinson wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> - What would we do with TC-supported incubated core projects that are
>> finally refused by the BoD after months of incubation ?
> 
> Is this a realistic concern? TC/BoD communication can't be a "throw it over the wall" thing. If this were to ever happen (and I find that unlikely), the pressing concern would be to adjust both the assumptions of and communication between the TC and BoD.

It's precisely one of the things that the Board of Directors wants to
clarify. It used to be a single group deciding incubation and core
status (the PPB), so this is a new concern. I agree that early
communication between the two groups is the best way to avoid issues,
but given the way the Board of Directors works, we can't exclude a
last-minute rejection when the Board finally meets to decide.

Personally I think that clearly separating the trademark-protected set
of projects from the TC-supported set of projects is a great way to
avoid that situation.

>> - What category would we demote current non-IaaS core projects (Horizon,
>> Keystone) and incubated projects (Ceilometer, Heat) to ?
> 
> This question is extremely poorly worded. A project in "core" or not is not a status symbol. There is not a "demotion". These projects that you have listed are working very hard to solve important problems in the OpenStack ecosystem. Implying that, even within the OpenStack project categories, there are ranks is very dangerous. At best it implies a lack of focus and at worse it leads to fractures in the community.
> 
> Projects that solve IaaS problems may be categorized as "core" (and thus have extra trademark or other restrictions). Projects that solve project-wide problems (eg docs, CI, and QA) may be categorized as something non-core, but this in no way implies that they are lesser in any way. These parts of OpenStack are vital to OpenStack's success.
> 
> Projects that do not fit within these categories should not be part of OpenStack. This also in no way implies that they are lesser in any way, but only that OpenStack's infrastructure and focus does not include them. This is similar to the rejection of Scalr's application to be included in OpenStack.

Maybe demotion is not the right term. My question is more, how do we
handle the transition ? There are projects currently in core but which,
if I read you correctly, do not fit within these categories you define:
Horizon and Keystone. If your motion is the one chosen, what do we do
with those ? Are you asking them to kindly leave summit, QA, docs,
release management, and CI space that they currently occupy ? The same
issue affects, in a slightly less-pressing manner, currently-incubated
projects that do not seem to fit within the categories you define either
(Ceilometer and Heat). I'm just trying to understand the actual
consequences of your proposal.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)