Open Stack

Steven,

Please see response from Doug:
http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki

If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.

Let's stop this thread now please.

Thanks,
Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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