Open Stack

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Works for me.

Doug


>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d4074a9b/attachment.html>