Open Stack

I don't see what is unclear about any of it.

What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?

Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it 
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".

But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons 
that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in 
this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.

Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that 
Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and 
orchestration tooling.

The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC 
guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent 
be useful here?

-jay

On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>