[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Neil Jerram Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com
Fri Feb 5 15:36:08 UTC 2016

On 04/02/16 22:39, Assaf Muller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins <sean at coreitpro.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote:
>>> Currently I don't understand why
>>> being a part of the stadium is good or bad for a networking project,
>>> or why does it matter.
>> I think the issue is of public perception.

I agree.  Being 'out' can matter, in some sense, if you are competing -
whether for money, mindshare or whatever - with another project or
approach that is 'in'.  Because it can appear to casual observers that
your project is less 'official', 'blessed', likely to be long term
supported, etc. etc.

But all of that can be mitigated if the criteria are clearly specified
and understand, and uniformly applied.

> That's what I was trying to point out. But it must be something other
> than perception, otherwise we could remove the inclusion list
> altogether. A project would not be in or out.

I'm afraid I don't understand here.

>> As others have stated, the
>> issue is the "in" vs. "out" problem. We had a similar situation
>> with 3rd party CI, where we had a list of drivers that were "nice" and
>> had CI running vs drivers that were "naughty" and didn't. Prior to the
>> vendor decomposition effort, We had a multitude of drivers that were
>> in-tree, with the public perception that drivers that were in Neutron's
>> tree were "sanctioned" by the Neutron project.
>> That may not have been the intention, but that's what I think happened.


As some others have said, I see the current discussion as being about
the chain of accountability, from a stadium project, through Neutron, up
to the OpenStack TC and board.  IIUC, Armando and other cores feel that
there is a gap there - because they can't reasonably understand and
vouch for all the stadium projects to the same standard they can for
core Neutron.  Plus it seems (from the current
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/275888/9 text) that there is a desire
for strong core team overlap between openstack/neutron and all Neutron
stadium projects.

As the lead of networking-calico, I think it's a reasonable call to say
that networking-calico (and similar projects) should therefore be
OpenStack big tent projects, rather than Neutron stadium, and hence the
reviews I've just left.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list