[openstack-dev] RFC: Basic definition of OpenStack Programs and first batch

Monty Taylor 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
>     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.

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 mailing list