Open Stack

Second try

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanevsky, Arkady 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:08 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [ironic] When should a project be under Ironic's governance?

Fully agree.
How do we propose to handle dependency of Ironic  version on specific version of a driver? 
Clearly distros can do it but we will not have a version for user of upstream to use without building it themselves.
I am only referring to ironic drivers that do pass CI voting that user expect availability of.
Thanks,
Arkady

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rollenhagen [mailto:jim at jimrollenhagen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 9:37 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] When should a project be under Ironic's governance?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Michael Turek <mjturek at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hello ironic!
>
> At today's IRC meeting, the questions "what should and should not be a 
> project be under Ironic's governance" and "what does it mean to be 
> under Ironic's governance" were raised. Log here:
>
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ironic/2016/ironic.2016-10-17-
> 17.00.log.html#l-176
>
> See http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/ironic.html for 
> a list of projects currently under Ironic's governance.
>
> Is it as simple as "any project that aides in openstack baremetal 
> deployment should be under Ironic's governance"? This is probably too 
> general (nova arguably fits here) but it might be a good starting point.
>
> Another angle to look at might be that a project belongs under the 
> Ironic governance when both Ironic (the main services) and the 
> candidate subproject would benefit from being under the same 
> governance. A hypothetical example of this is when Ironic and the candidate project need to release together.
>
> Just some initial thoughts to get the ball rolling. What does everyone 
> else think?

We discussed this during our contributor's meetup at the summit, and came to consensus in the room, that in order for a repository to be under ironic's governance:

* it must roughly fall within the TC's rules for a new project:
  http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
* it must not be intended for use with only a single vendor's hardware (e.g. a library
  to handle iLO is not okay, a library to handle IPMI is okay).
* it must align with ironic's mission statement: "To produce an OpenStack service
  and associated libraries capable of managing and provisioning physical machines,
  and to do this in a security-aware and fault-tolerant manner."
* lack of contributor diversity is a chicken-egg problem, and as such a repository
  where only a single company is contributing is okay.

I've proposed this as a docs patch: https://review.openstack.org/392685

We decided we should get consensus from all cores on that patch - meaning 80% or more agree, and any that disagree will still agree to live by the decision. So, cores, please chime in on gerrit. :)

Once that patch lands, I'll submit a patch to openstack/governance to shuffle projects around where they do or don't fit.

// jim

__________________________________________________________________________
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