Open Stack

As I noted in the meeting yesterday, I think the lack of response from
TripleO regarding this topic is kind of answer enough.  TripleO has
moved away from having a heavy dependency on diskimage-builder (it's
basically used to install some packages and a handful of elements that
we haven't been able to replace yet), so I don't see a problem with
moving dib out of TripleO, as long as we still have some TripleO folks
on the core team and tripleo-ci continues to test all changes against
it.  We still care about keeping dib working, but the motivation from
the TripleO side to do feature development in dib is pretty nonexistent
at this point, so if a new team wants to take that on then I'm good with it.

Note that the diskimage-builder core team has always been separate from
the tripleo-core team, so ultimately I guess this would just be a
governance change?

On 07/21/2016 04:58 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> The subject sort of says it all - I'd like to propose making
> diskimage-builder its own project team.
> 
> When we started diskimage-builder and many of the other TripleO
> components we designed them with the goal in mind of creating tools that
> are useful outside of the TripleO context (in addition to fulfilling our
> immediate needs).  To that effect diskimage-builder has become more of a
> cross-project tool designed and used by several of the OpenStack
> projects and as a result it no longer seems to make sense for
> diskimage-builder to be part of the TripleO project team. Our two core
> groups have diverged to a large extent over the last several cycles
> which has removed much of the value of being part of that project team
> while creating some awkward communication issues. To be clear - I
> believe this is purely a result of the TripleO project team succeeding
> in its goal to improve OpenStack by use of the virtuous cycle and this
> is an ideal result of that goal.
> 
> Is this is something the DIB and TripleO folks agree/disagree with? If
> we all agree then I think this should be a fairly straightforward
> process, otherwise I welcome some discussion on the topic :).
> 
> Cheers,
> Greg
>