[openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance

Kyle Mestery mestery at mestery.com
Tue Mar 10 16:36:06 UTC 2015

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> The TC is in the middle of implementing a fairly significant change in
> project governance.  You can find an overview from Thierry on the
> OpenStack blog [1].
> Part of the change is to recognize more projects as being part of the
> OpenStack community.  Another critical part was replacing the integrated
> release with a set of tags.  A project would be given a tag if it meets
> some defined set of criteria.
> I feel that we're at a very vulnerable part of this transition.  We've
> abolished the incubation process and integrated release.  We've
> established a fairly low bar for new projects [2].  However, we have not
> yet approved *any* tags other than the one that reflects which projects
> are included in the final integrated release (Kilo) [3].  Despite the
> previously discussed challenges with the integrated release,
> it did at least mean that a project has met a very useful set of
> criteria [4].
> We now have several new project proposals.  However, I propose not
> approving any new projects until we have a tagging system that is at
> least far enough along to represent the set of criteria that we used to
> apply to all OpenStack projects (with exception for ones we want to
> consciously drop).  Otherwise, I think it's a significant setback to our
> project governance as we have yet to provide any useful way to navigate
> the growing set of projects.
> +1000 to this. I don't see how we can reliably approve new project
proposals here when we haven't even defined the second half of the new
governance model (tags). It's worth putting the breaks on things here until
that settles out, or we'll find ourselves in an even bigger mess.

The previous governance model at least made an attempt at focusing work and
projects and not allowing the proliferation of possibly overlapping
projects. Lets not rush into approving new things until we're comfortable
the new governance model will stick to the core principles the old
governance model was successful at.

> The resulting set of tags doesn't have to be focused on replicating our
> previous set of criteria.  The focus must be on what information is
> needed by various groups of consumers and tags are a mechanism to
> implement that.  In any case, we're far from that point because today we
> have nothing.
> I can't think of any good reason to rush into approving projects in the
> short term.  If we're not able to work out this rich tagging system in a
> reasonable amount of time, then maybe the whole approach is broken and
> we need to rethink the whole approach.
> This is the litmus test for tags, so agree.


> Thanks,
> [1]
> http://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/tc-update-project-reform-progress/
> [2]
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
> [3] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/index.html
> [4]
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.html
> --
> Russell Bryant
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150310/f7636978/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list