Open Stack

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/10/2015 02:28 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Amen. +1.
>
> To be honest, given how OpenStack is always about change, I'm confused
that people are not willing to stop, evaluate where we are, and make sure
it's moving in the intended direction. Seems like taking stock of where we
as we change the governance model would be a wise thing to do.

As a given example, I'd like to compare the governance model OpenStack used
to have with the one OpenDaylight currently has. OpenStack is moving
towards the ODL model with the "big tent" proposal. The existing ODL
governance model has been to accept anything that is proposed (note: that's
the tl;dr version, read here [1] for more details). Any project proposed in
ODL is accepted and allowed in. Great, right? Except it's not always great,
because there is no check for overlapping functionality, they allow in
vendor-only projects, and they now have 48 accepted projects. Even worse,
at least 5 of those implement "network virtualization." As a user of ODL,
trying to figure out which one to use for network virtualization is
challenging. Someone used the reference of ODL being a "bag of parts you
assemble on your own", and to some extent that's true. Maybe this is a
distribution's job, in which case the "bag of parts" reference for upstream
may be ok. It is what it is, after all.

Even worse, when you want to do something like integrate ODL with
OpenStack, which network virtualization project do you use? It depends on
who you work for or which project you're involved in. But the answer is
never a consensus one, because with overlapping functionality, integrating
ODL and OpenStack now means different things to different people.

At the end of the day, it's my opinion consensus is the part of the Big
Tent that worries me. To me, consensus is a big part of what makes
OpenStack awesome. However tags and big tents evolve, if we lose that,
we've lost part of OpenStack that got us to where we are.

Kyle

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Main

-jay
>
>
>  - Gabriel
>>
>> -----Original Message----- 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
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>>
>>
>>  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
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150310/2ecc78b8/attachment.html>