[openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance

Joe Gordon joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 21:27:52 UTC 2015

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 10/03/15 12:29, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> 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.
> I appreciate the concerns here, but I'm also uncomfortable with having an
> open-ended hold on making projects an official part of OpenStack. There are
> a lot of projects on StackForge that are by any reasonable definition a
> part of this community, it seems wrong to put them on indefinite hold when
> the Big Tent model has already been agreed upon.
> Here is a possible compromise: invite applications now and set a fixed
> date on which the new system will become operational. That way it's the
> TC's responsibility to get the house in order by the deadline, rather than
> making it everyone else's problem. If we see a wildly inappropriate
> application then that's valuable data about where the requirements are
> unclear. To avoid mass confusion in the absence of a mature set of tags, I
> think it's probably appropriate that the changes kick in after the Kilo
> release, but let's make it as soon as possible after that.

After watching the TC meeting, and double checking with the meeting notes
[0], it looks like the magnum vote was deferred to next week. But what
concerns me is the lack of action items assigned that will help make sure
next weeks discussion isn't just a repeat of what happened today.

I get that starting to apply the big tent model to admit new projects will
take time to get right, but deferring a decision for a "it's not you, it's
me" reason without any actionable items doesn't sound like real progress to

[0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2015/tc.2015-03-10-20.06.html

> cheers,
> Zane.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/bd54ac03/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list