Open Stack

Thanks Doug.  I didn't pick up on your choice of Zane's point #1.  If that
is how the rest of the TC feels about it, that wfm.  I will be submitting
a resolution with your wording so clarity is reached and not lost in a
mailing list thread in the future when this issue occurs again.

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 1:13 PM, "Doug Hellmann" <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

>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-re
>>>>>>>>>ti
>> >>>>>>>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