Open Stack

Mark Washenberger wrote:
>>     * 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
> 
> Can you clarify this concern? Overall, folks would still be ATCs of the
> projects that they were committing on in the name of the given program,
> so their "OpenStack ATC" status would be successfully tracked
> regardless. Is the problem organizing leadership votes *within* the
> program? If so, could we settle on horizontal votes being extended to
> all OpenStack ATCs? or is that just too wide open?

I'd rather have the same rules for every "program" and not start
special-casing them. You want the leader of the team to be chosen by the
members of the team, not by a vast majority of people external to the
team. Maybe the simplest is just to keep those "efforts" separated from
programs, but clearly document them.

>>     , and I'd like the programs mission statements to be
>>     precise rather than vague, so that the TC can bless them...
> 
> Can you give an example of the kind of vagueness you're worried about?
> Perhaps it is just a failure of my imagination, but I can't seem to
> conceive of a way a program mission statement would be distinctly more
> vague than a project mission statement.

I'm not really afraid of vagueness in general. I was afraid that if we
tried to lump all "horizontal efforts" into a catch-all program, that
catch-all program would have a rather weird-looking mission statement.
That can be solved by creating separate programs rather than catch-alls.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)