[openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance
Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com
Tue Mar 10 18:28:30 UTC 2015
Blocking the acceptance of new projects seems punitive and against the spirit of the big tent. Classification (tagging) can be done at any point, and is hardly fixed in stone. You can refine tags as needed.
To put it harshly: it is a failure of both leadership and process to have stripped out the old process and set a low bar only to insist that no one may be accepted under the new criteria because you haven't defined the rest of the process yet.
Even more concerning is the sentiment of "projects we want to consciously drop" from Russell's original email. I realize that was meant to apply to whatever becomes the "integrated release" tag, yet still... the point of the big tent is not to exclude; the big tent is meant to *include and classify* so that the community, operators, distros, and vendors could make the best choices for themselves.
So I agree that these projects are a great litmus test for what kind of tags you need, but at this point I don't think you have a leg to stand on for not accepting projects that meet the current criteria. The bar for acceptance is in the governance documents.
A freeze seems unjustifiable and dragging your feet seems unnecessary, at least unless you all plan on changing the governance yet again.
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:00 AM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance
Russell Bryant wrote:
> 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.
> 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 agree that we need tags to represent the various facets of what was in the integrated release concept.
I'm not sure we should block accepting new project teams until all tags are defined, though. That sounds like a way to stall forever. So could you be more specific ? Is there a clear set of tags you'd like to see defined before we add new project teams ?
> 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.
The current plan for the Vancouver Design Summit is to only give space to "OpenStack" projects (while non-OpenStack projects may get space in "ecosystem" sessions outside of the Design Summit). So it's only fair for those projects to file for recognition before that happens.
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev