Open Stack

On 03/28/2016 06:09 PM, joehuang wrote:
> Hi, Thierry,
>
> One question about this  ' The transition to the "big tent" governance model is now finished, with all the expected projects now officially part of the OpenStack community. The big tent is all about community: answering the "are you one of us" question.'.
>
> Does it mean that no more project will be approved to be a big tent project in the Newton and Ocata release?

No - I believe that Thierry was trying to say we've finished our 
governance transition so that now we apply the new criteria when we add 
projects to the Big Tent.

> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang ( Joe Huang )
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 11:53 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [election] [tc] TC candidacy
>
> (This was also submitted as https://review.openstack.org/#/c/298294)
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to submit my candidacy for reelection on the Technical Committee. For those who don't know me yet, my name is Thierry Carrez, I use "ttx" as my IRC nickname. I'm currently employed by the OpenStack Foundation as its Director of Engineering, which basically means I'm running the team in charge of ensuring the long-term health of the upstream OpenStack open source project and its governance. Handling the Technical Committee is my primary activity: 6 months ago I left the PTL role for the Release Management Team in order to be able to focus as much as possible on the TC.
>
> One year ago I ran for election with the goal of having the TC "step out of the way"[1]. The idea was to remove the TC from the critical path of getting things done, and encourage a "ask for forgiveness, rather than permission" attitude in our community. I like to think we were successful at this. Project teams can now more easily add git repositories as they need them, they also end up asserting some tags by themselves, and the TC has generally moved to being an appeals board in case of disputes, rather than a procedural barrier in getting things done.
>
> Here are the three priorities for my upcoming mandate, if the electorate chooses to reelect me to the TC:
>
> 1/ Cleaning up the big tent
>
> The transition to the "big tent" governance model is now finished, with all the expected projects now officially part of the OpenStack community. The big tent is all about community: answering the "are you one of us" question. Our approach there was to be inclusive and assume good faith, especially as we caught up on documenting what we meant by "the OpenStack Way". Over the past year we created the Project Team Guide[2], which clearly explains what is expected of official project teams. I think it's time for us to look back at all those projects we have in the tent, reach out to those who are lacking, and not hesitate to remove the ones that are not following our common community practices from the list of official project teams. Demoting a project used to be particularly painful, with costly git repository renames crating disruption on the demoted projects. But now that all projects hosted under our infrastructure (official and unofficial) use the same namespace, this cost and dis
ruption are very limited, so cleaning up the big tent is now possible.
>
> 2/ Defining the limits of the big tent
>
> The TC recently had two project team applications for which we had no good answer: Poppy and Tacker. Those resulted in close (and somewhat
> arbitrary) votes as each TC member tried to interpret the mission statement words and what we stand for. In the case of Poppy, there was the question of whether a service that proxies to non-OpenStack commercial services could be considered part of "OpenStack", without an open source reference implementation to do end-to-end testing against.
> In the case of Tacker, there was the question of a service standing on top of other OpenStack services to present a domain-specific API tailored to a specific use case or industry. Should that still be "OpenStack", or just something that consumes OpenStack ? I'd like the TC to take a step back and explore those two questions, without the pressure of a specific project team addition. Clarifying the rules may result in some official projects to be demoted to "unofficial" status as they would not fit the rules anymore.
>
> 3/ Launching the new separated event for project team members
>
> We recently started the discussion[3] on splitting the "design summit"
> into wider community feedback / requirements-gathering sessions (that would happen at the main Summit) and a specific event for project team members to gather in a co-located venue to come up with a plan and organize its execution. We still have a long way to go (and not that much time) to discuss the format and the timing of this new event, and I expect the Newton membership of the TC to help with taking quick decisions there. The next step here will be a cross-project workshop at the Design Summit in Austin to discuss the current plan and go deeper in the details.
>
> Those are my three priorities for Newton and Ocata, and this is what I'll push the Technical Committee towards if I'm elected.
>
> Thank you all for your consideration !
>
> [1] http://ttx.re/stepping-out-of-the-way.html
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/
> [3] http://ttx.re/splitting-out-design-summit.html
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>