Open Stack

On 28/07/16 14:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Zane,

I don't understand why you're directing this reply to me. I *just* made 
clear that I don't have any interest one way or the other.

> There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
> on the ML. I personally was helpful to some extent with the beginnning
> of kolla-kubernetes.
>
> So i don't think it's a lack of communication that's to blame.

AFAICT this has nothing to do with my point that this thread is a *train 
wreck* where everyone is talking past each other.

Also at no time did I ever refer to a "lack of communication".

> Also if you see the repos, there's not much there... In effect they
> are starting from scratch knowingly.

As I said, I don't have a horse in this race and I don't actually care. 
I'm just trying to explain each side's position to the other in the hope 
that they'll stop arguing.

> But if you wish as i said before, please do file a TC resolution and
> let's see where it goes.

I wouldn't know which one to file (although Doug's response suggests 
it's interpretation 1). Besides, I already did my good deed for the day 
and got attacked for my trouble.

> As Steven said before "We are all adults and can live by the rules,
> even if we disagree with them"

I don't even disagree with *either* rule. I'm merely trying to point out 
that different but unexamined opinions on what the rule is leads to bad 
discussions.

cheers,
Zane.

> Thanks,
> Dims
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes 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 word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
>> history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
>> week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
>> of 'team'.
>>
>> So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
>> repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
>> repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
>> raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)
>>
>> What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
>> I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
>> and we would all be happier :)
>>
>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
>>
>>
>> Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
>> interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
>> within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
>> official projects should have unofficial repos applies.
>>
>> Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
>> unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
>> (naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
>> official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
>> think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
>> communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
>> response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
>> again?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Zane.
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
>
>