Open Stack

Hey

You might remember the big "The future of Incubation and Core"
discussion we had back in November.

Since then, reps from the TC and Foundation Board have been meeting to
clarify (amongst other things) what it means for the TC to approve a
project's graduation from Incubation.

Obviously, this is important with Heat and Ceilometer's potential
graduation around the corner. We've made enough progress that we can
keeping moving forward with the incubation process for these projects.

Full details below. Questions, comments, concerns, etc. all welcome.

Cheers,
Mark.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com>
> Reply-to: Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com>
> To: openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Incubation process
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:26:18 +0000
> 
> Hey
> 
> The "Incubation Update" committee meetings are still going on, but
> Thierry and I made the point at the last meeting that the TC will soon
> need to be able to proceed with evaluating Ceilometer and Heat for
> graduation from Incubation.
> 
> We came up with a summary of how we think the TC should proceed based on
> the committee discussions so far. I think it closely matches what the TC
> agreed previously its position[1] on the issue.
> 
> I'm giving the Foundation Board a run through of this on Thursday (as
> the TC rep) to give them an opportunity to raise any red flags. Assuming
> all is well there, I expect we'll need to quickly go about updating the
> TC's policies on Incubation.
> 
> To be clear - all of this is still subject to a final TC vote.
> 
> The full summary is here:
> 
>   https://etherpad.openstack.org/IncubationAndCoreInterimSummary
> 
> but the tl;dr is:
> 
>   * Graduating from Incubation means a project is "Integrated", meaning 
>     it will be part of the next coordinated release
> 
>   * Which projects are accepted into - and graduate from - Incubation 
>     is the TC's decision
> 
>   * The "Core" designation is closely tied to the trademark programme
>     managed by the Foundation Board
> 
>   * There should be no expectation that projects which graduate from 
>     Incubation will eventually be designated "Core". Projects will work 
>     with the Foundation Board - either before, during or after 
>     Incubation - to understand whether they are likely to be suitable to
>     be "Core" in future
> 
> Thierry did an excellent job of drawing this:
> 
>   https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oLo1ETnRpNSgDj_m7p6o6tF7HHA2a-3XeKa-QLMBcRc/edit
> 
> Does this all make sense to everyone?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> [1] - I double-checked exactly what we agreed since it has been a while :)
> 
> The position we voted for was:
> 
>   http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2012/tc.2012-11-20-20.01.html
> 
>   Separate the trademark question from the "developed under OpenStack
>   umbrella" question, have incubation be the process by which you become
>   supported, potentially with multiple categories as far as associated
>   resources are concerned
> 
> We called this the "annemark" motion which was a summary of this:
> 
>   http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-November/002771.html
> 
>   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.
> 
> with the addition of Anne's suggestion that some projects which are "in
> OpenStack" (what we're now calling "Integrated") might potentially
> receive different levels of resource commitment in terms of e.g.
> 
>   http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-November/002904.html
> 
>   - track time at the Summit every six months
>   - release management time at the weekly Project meeting
>   - testing gated via DevStack and/or tempest
>   - CI guidance
>   - documentation guidance