Open Stack

On 1 June 2013 00:06, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> It feels like complexity here is the enemy of transparency. Is Monty a CI,
> TripleO, or oslo rep? It gets complicated quickly. Does mikal run as oslo
> vs. nova? And does he pick in advance because his chances are better in one
> than the other?

Monty? Definitely CI :). FWIW TripleO hasn't *had* an election, so we
don't have a PTL :). I suspect I have the most breadth on the
endeavour, though I know I don't have the same depth as e.g. Clint on
Heat or Devananda on bare-metal-hypervisors.

To rephrase a point in the diskimage-builder thread -  one of the
reasons to sort diskimage-builder out is because it currently:
 - is depended on by incubated OpenStack components
 - isn't a wholly separate thing that you can 'Just Use' like e.g.
testtools or mysql
 - and doesn't have the same governance - and governance issues flow
downhill - as anything incubated/integrated.

So rather than inventing a whole new thing there, we want to do what
OpenStack as a whole thinks makes sense [which might be for instance
to consider TripleO a programme, like Oslo, with a PTL, and
Diskimage-builder one of the things within the programme, or might be
to slot it in glance, or ...]

All this to say, governance does matter; and FWIW the thing I most
want to see is O(TC size) no longer coupled to O(projects). It's at
breaking point now. I'm happy with flat, I'm happy with broad
categories as long as we're willing to revisit them every (say) 2
years.

And I'm not worried about one companies representatives owning the TC:
if a single company has that many sane competent and universally
respected people - cool. We should be so lucky :).

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services