Open Stack

On 03/10/2015 02:43 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Joe Gordon wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> 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.
>>
>> I don't follow this argument.
>>
>> My understanding is no tags will be required to join 'OpenStack,' they
>> are just optional things for projects to try to achieve once they are
>> in. So holding off accepting new projects for something that is not
>> required during the adding new projects process seems odd.
>>
>> Perhaps a better way to say the same thing is: While working with the
>> tagging system to come up with a good set of tags to represent our
>> previous graduation requirements, we may want to adjust the new project
>> requirements[0].
>>
>> [0] governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
>> <http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html>  
> 
> I totally agree with you. Project team additions are judged on the new
> projects requirements. Tagging are just about describing them once they
> are in. I suspect most people advocating for a freeze are actually
> wanting extra rules to be added to the new project requirements (think:
> diversity). We said at the TC that we would refine those requirements as
> we go and learn... So slowly processing applications sounds like a
> better way to make fast iterative progress than freezing altogether.

I completely understand and agree with the difference between project
additions and the categorization.

> I /think/ Russell's point is that we'd end up adding not-yet-categorized
> stuff in the tent and that might create temporary confusion -- I tend to
> think that freezing project addition is actually more detrimental.

Yes, that was my point.  It's an ordering issue.

-- 
Russell Bryant