Open Stack

On 06/24/2013 01:14 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>
> 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)

Does everything need to live under a program to get accounted for? 
Devstack isn't really a natural fit into the existing categories. Those 
of us that work on it tend to span a lot of categories anyway. I think 
as long as we acknowledge that it's an important project, and it's 
contributors will get counted as ATCs, where it fits in, or if it fits 
in to a program isn't all that important.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net