Open Stack

How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be 
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying 
to be part of the OpenStack tent?

Just curious here...

-jay

On 07/28/2016 02:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people from
> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree with
> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would
> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
> OpenStack.
>
> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
> these scenarios in the future.
>
> The TC has four options as I see it:
> 1) do nothing
> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis
> and second analysis
>
> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
> Vladimir!).
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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-retireme
>>>> nt
>>>> .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
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>