Open Stack

On 06/24/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> "Official" OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
> Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
> (which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee members).
> 
> The list of official projects used to be simple (Swift+Nova) but
> nowadays it is rather convoluted, with categories like "integrated",
> "incubated", "library", "gating" and "supporting", as described in [1].
> That complexity derived from the need to special-case some projects
> because their PTL would automatically get a TC seat. Now that we
> simplified the TC membership, we can also simplify official projects
> nomenclature by blessing the goals rather than the specific repositories.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Projects
> 
> This is why Monty had the idea of "programs" which would be blessed by
> the TC (and then any code under an official program becomes "official").
> Rather than trying to come up with categories that would cover all the
> stuff that the Infrastructure team is working on (gating, supporting,
> libraries...), just say that "Infrastructure" is a program and let them
> add any repo that they need. The TC would bless the *mission statement*
> of the program rather than the specific set of projects implemented to
> reach that goal.
> 
> That sounds like a pretty nice idea, so could we consider everything
> falls under the realm of a "program" ? Like having an "integrated
> release" program that would contain all integrated projects ? I think we
> need to keep special-casing a concept of "projects", separated from
> "programs", since those are accepted one by one by the TC and go through
> an incubation period. Those "projects" would contain at least one repo
> that wants to be part of the integrated, common OpenStack release, plus
> anything the same team works on (like the corresponding python client
> project).
> 
> To match with the current state we would end up with:
> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
> Ceilometer, Heat)
> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)
> 
> New programs would draft a clear mission statement and apply to the TC
> for consideration. Programs should also expect to have a specific
> "topic" at the Design Summit (most of them already have), and should
> probably designate a lead/ambassador as a clear go-to person.

Thank you for describing the idea very well! I specifically like the
idea of a program proposal drafting a mission statement and having a
PTL. (infra and oslo both do PTLs, so I think it's a fair thing to
except other programs to as well)

> A few questions I had left:
> 
> * There are efforts that span multiple projects but work directly on the
> project code repositories, like integrated release, or stable
> maintenance, or vulnerability management (collectively called for the
> convenience of this thread "horizontal efforts"). Should they be
> considered separate programs (without repos) ? Be lumped together into
> some catch-all "integration" or "production" program ? Or ignored as far
> as ATC status goes ? I've mixed feelings about that. On one hand I'd
> like those efforts visible and official to be more widely seen as a good
> way to contribute to OpenStack. On the other hand it's hard to tie ATC
> membership to those since we can't trace that back to commits to a
> specific repo, and I'd like the programs mission statements to be
> precise rather than vague, so that the TC can bless them...

I'd actually like to revisit this question as a separate thing.
Honestly, I want to see bug work and review work as part of the ATC
calculation. Seriously - both are hard and thankless. I think those are
really the only two places where work on the above stuff can 'fall
through the cracks' by potentially not having a 'patch'.

> * Where would devstack fall ? QA program ? Infrastructure program ?

I think it's honestly a joint-venture between QA and Infra (especially
if you consider developer tooling to fall into the infra umbrella -
which is where it traditionally has fallen) But I'd say it's more
primarily Infra and we use it for QA, rather than the other way around
(as someone said the other day - it's devstack, not teststack or
tempeststack)

> * Where would openstack/requirements fall ?

I think openstack/requirements sits under oslo - although right now it's
a joint-venture between oslo and infra.

Monty