Open Stack

On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.

It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it 
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these 
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.

The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in 
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each 
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos 
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to 
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.

The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only 
criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of 
us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and 
that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject 
to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy 
to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good 
faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely 
at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)

The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the 
(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has 
the same interpretation :)

Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current 
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the 
complaints about it look like sour grapes.

Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current 
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC 
oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an 
official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of 
said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt 
to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.

I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify 
what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.

cheers,
Zane.