[openstack-dev] RFC: Basic definition of OpenStack Programs and first batch
mordred at inaugust.com
Tue Jul 2 18:30:52 UTC 2013
On 07/02/2013 05:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Robert Collins
> <robertc at robertcollins.net <mailto:robertc at robertcollins.net>> wrote:
> On 2 July 2013 21:32, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> > Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> """
> >> 'OpenStack Programs' are efforts which are essential to the
> >> 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
> >> 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',
> >> '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
> >> """
> > Oops. In this variant, Trove and Ironic, as programs, would not be "in
> > incubation" (only one of their deliverables would). That last
> > should be fixed as:
> > """
> > The initial Programs are 'Nova', 'Swift', 'Cinder', 'Neutron',
> > 'Horizon', 'Glance', 'Keystone', 'Heat', 'Ceilometer',
> > '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
> 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.
I'm fine with this as long as a program can be a group of 0 or more
projects. On the chance that we decide to use the concept to refer to
horizontal efforts (I do not think we need to decide on that right now)
I would hate to be hide-bound and exclude security or release or
translations because they don't have their own repo or project deliverable.
More information about the OpenStack-dev