Open Stack

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> What would be your alternate definition ?

Let me see if I can answer myself :) I think we have two ways forward.

Solution (1) is to make "Programs" and "Projects" separate entities,
where "Projects" would be the teams which end up producing at least one
"integrated" thing (as in: a server/REST thing which may end up being
considered for "core" labelling). It's the same as what I originally
proposed, but perhaps this wording would be clearer:

"""
'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the completion
of our mission, but which do not produce a server 'integrated' delivery,
like Projects do. Programs can create any code repository and produce
any deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals.

(other paragraphs are similar to the initial RFC)
"""

Solution (2) is to make everything a "Program". Some have a goal of
producing an 'integrated' piece and those must go through incubation.
Something like:

"""
'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the completion
of our mission. Programs can create any code repository and produce any
deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals.

Programs are placed under the oversight of the Technical Committee, and
contributing to one of their code repositories grants you ATC status.

Current efforts or teams which want to be recognized as an 'OpenStack
Program' should place a request to the Technical Committee, including a
clear mission statement describing how they help the OpenStack general
mission and how that effort is essential to the completion of our
mission. Only programs which have a goal that includes the production of
a server 'integrated' deliverable need to go through an Incubation period.

The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron',
'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', 'Documentation',
'Infrastructure', 'QA' and 'Oslo'. 'Trove' and 'Ironic' are in
incubation. Those programs should retroactively submit a mission
statement and initial lead designation, if they don't have one already.
"""

In that scenario, we could also name them "Official Teams"... because
that's the central piece.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)