Open Stack

Jay,

That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.

Regards,
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

>The TC has given guidance on this already:
>
>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement
>.html
>
>"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
>“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>
>The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
>
>They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>
>Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
>time.
>
>Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
>the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
>to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
>that.
>
>Best,
>-jay
>
>On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>>>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate.
>>>>I
>>>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². 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.
>>>
>>> 
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>__
>>> 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