Open Stack

Armando M. wrote:
> [...]
> So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after
> some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so.

I also think it's time to revisit this experience now that it's been
around for some time. On one hand the Neutron stadium allowed to
increase the development bandwidth by tackling bottlenecks in reviews
using smaller core review teams. On the other it's been difficult for
Neutron leadership to follow up on all those initiatives and the results
in terms of QA and alignment with "the OpenStack way" have been... mixed.

And this touches on the governance issue. By adding all those projects
under your own project team, you bypass the Technical Committee approval
that they behave like OpenStack projects and are produced by the
OpenStack community. The Neutron team basically vouches for all of them
to be on par. As far as the Technical Committee goes, they are all being
produced by the same team we originally blessed (the Neutron project team).

That is perfectly fine with me, as long as the Neutron team feels
confident they can oversee every single one of them and vouch for every
single one of them. If the Neutron PTL feels the core Neutron leadership
just can't keep up, I think we have a problem we need to address, before
it taints the Neutron project team itself.

One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them
full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the TC would judge
those new project teams individually and might reject them if we feel
the requirements are not met. We might want to clarify what happens then.

Thanks for raising this thread!

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)