Open Stack

Anne Gentle wrote:
> I think there are projects that should be held to the requirements an
> integrated release has. They're probably all in nuclear and core.
> Perhaps nuclear is only helpful to scope release management, CI,
> integration testing, and doc. Hm. I would want "core" projects to get
> benefits from the systems we provide but not overwhelm them.

So, if I understand correctly, your motion would be a variation on
Mark's proposal where we would split the "services" category into two:
"core" and "nuclear", which would be prioritized slightly differently in
terms of associated common resources.

Those would still be technically-defined (under the authority of the TC)
in a way that is disconnected from trademark usage (although I suspect
it would be a good thing if Nuclear projects were all in the BoD
trademark scope).

I think that's definitely acceptable. A bit more bureaucracy on one side
(one additional project category) but it might end up being useful to
prioritize our resources if we grow the number of projects. Whether we
end up with one or two (or more) project categories is not actually that
important at this stage, that's just a technical way to name project
types under the TC's responsibility.

What we really need is a view on how to handle incubation and core
process together with the BoD, and on that point your motion is very
aligned with Mark's, as far as I can tell: separate the areas of
responsibility by handling trademark issues separately from which
project we grow under the OpenStack development umbrella.

Maybe we can merge the two motions by leaving the question of the number
of project categories for a future discussion ? I'm not sure it makes
sense to decide between the two variants until we know if the rest of
our position is acceptable by the BoD.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)