Open Stack

Dims,

I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:

>Zane, Steve,
>
>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>
>Thanks,
>-- Dims
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
>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-retire
>>>>>me
>>>>>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
>
>
>
>-- 
>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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