Open Stack

Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:40:29 +0000:
> 
> 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.

I did not ignore his assessment. If I was not clear, I am saying
that his interpretation #1 is the correct interpretation, that
members of official teams can contribute to repositories that are
not under governance.

If you disagree with my conclusion or think further action is needed,
then I suggest you formally propose something be added to the TC
agenda. I consider this resolved, but it is well within your rights
as a community member to propose topics for discussion yourself and
I whole-heartedly encourage you to exercise those rights if you
think you are not being heard and that the full TC needs to be
involved to take more formal action.

To add an agenda item, all you have to do is edit the wiki page [1]
but please note there are some stipulations about timing at the
bottom of the page, so read those first to ensure that your
expectations are set correctly. If you have any known schedule
conflicts, include that information so we can be sure to schedule
the discussion for a week when you can be present to participate.

Doug

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee

> 
> 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
>