Open Stack

Steve,

This thread has degenerated. So my request is to use Doug's post as
status quo. If there's disagreement then file for a resolution that
suits them

-- Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steven,
>>
>>Please see response from Doug:
>>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
>
> Dims,
>
> Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?
>
> I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
> of the problem at hand.
>
> Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if you
> like.
>
>>
>>If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
>>
>>Let's stop this thread now please.
>
>
> Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
> the right thing.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>>
>>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-reti
>>>>>>>>re
>>>>>>>>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
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________________
>>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