Open Stack

Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> so it's not completely
>> crazy to kick it back to non-official status (especially now that it
>> doesn't trigger any repository rename).
>
> Please don't. It took over 5 months to get it, and to be allowed to
> create the initial Git repository under the OpenStack namespace, with
> others replying to the project-config code review that we should be
> waiting on the TC's decision first. I don't want to have this happen
> again, that'd be really too much of a loss of time.
>
> It's taking a (really too) long time to be setup properly with the
> Debian image and build infrastructure. I'm aware of it, and I hope we
> can fix this during the Newton cycle. Though a lot of teams are waiting
> on this project. Puppet OpenStack wants to gate on what we'll be
> producing, and so is Fuel. The plan is that MOS guys will also do more
> work over there using Gerrit, if we have something usable.
>
> Please allow us to make it happen.

We have two separate issues here. The first one is that we added a 
requirement that official project teams need to be active for some time 
before they are considered for addition. We rejected a number of 
projects (including Kosmos and the Juju charms) based on that new 
requirement. The packaging-deb team was approved before that new 
requirement was added, but that doesn't mean it can just ignore it (as 
otherwise that would be unfair to the teams we rejected).

You make a good point that the team is active but that activity can't 
translate to commits yet -- if anyone proposes the removal of 
packaging-deb due to failing to meet the activity requirement, I expect 
we'll come back to that discussion. But nobody did yet, so it's not an 
immediate issue.

> I hope that everyone understands the situation, and I hope that the
> proposal to have Monty hijacking the project will remain a joke.
>
> Oh, and if it wasn't clear: I'm again proposing myself as a PTL for the
> project, since I don't think anyone else will want to stand.

The second issue is that we don't have any way to run an election on the 
project, since we don't have a way to determine "contributors" (or 
rather, the only voter and potential candidate under those rules would 
be Monty). You can't even apply to be the PTL :) That is obviously an 
exceptional case and if I read Tristan's answer correctly, it will 
naturally end up in the process where the TC ends up picking the PTL. It 
feels natural if you're the only candidate that we would pick you, but 
that will likely have to wait until the end of the election period.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)