Open Stack

On 2016-11-28 13:33:56 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> 1. A resolution reaffirming the "level playing field" requirement,
>    and acknowledging that it effectively precludes official status
>    for teams which only develop drivers for proprietary systems
>    (hard black) [2]
[...]
> 2. A resolution reaffirming the "level playing field" requirement,
>    and acknowledging that it does not necessarily preclude official
>    status for teams which only develop drivers for proprietary
>    systems (soft black) [3]
[...]
> 3. A resolution and policy change removing the "level playing field"
>    requirement (hard white) [4]
[...]
> 4. A resolution and policy change loosening the "level playing field"
>    requirement (soft white) [5]
[...]
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/403834 - Proprietary driver dev is unlevel
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/403836 - Driver development can be level
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/403838 - Stop requiring a level playing field
> [5] https://review.openstack.org/403839 - Level playing fields, except drivers
[...]

I proposed these because I have a strong preference not to bury the
problem in additional bureaucracy. Either we determine that we want
to recognize the developers writing drivers as an official part of
our community and need to reinterpret/adjust our policies because
they're in conflict with our intent, or we decide that the intent of
our policy necessarily precludes official recognition for driver
teams. Without addressing this issue at its source, we're sort of
avoiding addressing it at all.

I'm not really a fan of the more complex solutions proposed, since
they don't seem (to me) to address the fundamental issue. I feel
like the "Big Tent" only remains true to its design if we have one
kind of team in it. As soon as we begin to define second-class teams
that are still in some way "official" we're back to much of the same
conflict and tension which drove us to our current governance model
in the first place.

The scaling concerns from allowing too many "small" teams who only
develop drivers should be dealt with as a separate issue. There are
plenty of other small, single-affiliation developer teams working
within our community and I think whatever solutions we come up with
for scaling limited resources in the tent shouldn't single out
driver development as the cause.

I think we also need to look harder at the reasons for driver-only
developer teams seeking official status. If it's because they want
to be part of the community and help collaborate with the rest of
us, then as long as they can do that consistent with our overall
goals and ideals I think that's great and we should welcome them as
one of us. If the reason is because they feel it raises the profile
of their products within the OpenStack ecosystem or conveys an
implication of better OpenStack support on their platforms, then we
should work harder as a community to dispel that notion (even if it
means we need to actively sabotage the "tent" as a marketing
platform) and find other places for companies to advertise the level
of OpenStack support their customers should expect.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161129/d4b0d329/attachment.pgp>