Open Stack

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>wrote:

> On 2 July 2013 21:32, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> > Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> """
> >> '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. If programs have a goal that includes the production of
> >> a server 'integrated' deliverable, that specific project would still
> >> 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.
> >> """
> >
> > Oops. In this variant, Trove and Ironic, as programs, would not be "in
> > incubation" (only one of their deliverables would). That last paragraph
> > should be fixed as:
> >
> > """
> > The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron',
> > 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer', 'Documentation',
> > 'Infrastructure', 'QA', 'Oslo', 'Trove' and 'Ironic'. Those programs
> > should retroactively submit a mission statement and initial lead
> > designation, if they don't have one already.
> > """
> >
> > Maybe Ironic should be merged into the TripleO program when it's
> considered.
>
> Certainly; with our focus on deploy and operations, Ironic is very
> much something we'll care about forever :). OTOH, baremetal machine
> provisioning is a distinct concern from OpenStack deployment and
> operations. I don't know that there is a better place for Ironic; it's
> certainly got significant tentacles into other areas than just Nova
> [hence it being split out in the first place]. Nevertheless : clearly
> Ironic is a Project, and Incubated. I think whether it is incorporated
> into it's own Program, or TripleO, isn't a very interesting question.
> ATC membership is decoupled from things now, so \o/.
>
> On proposal 3, I wonder if it makes things too vague : if a Program
> can have one or more integrated Projects, it sort of suggests that
> perhaps Neutron be a Project of the Nova Program?
>

I like option 3 because it lets us move ahead without having to revisit
what may just have been an unfortunate narrowness of vision in the original
charter (who knew we would grow so quickly?). We have been letting the
projects evolve around feature sets in a way that helps us manage code and
feature complexity, e.g. breaking networking and block storage out of nova.
The addition of programs as groups of one or more projects is a natural way
to manage changes in the community's size and complexity as we continue to
grow.

Doug


>
> -Rob
>
>
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Cloud Services
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130702/0b9c5974/attachment.html>