Open Stack

On 16-09-21 05:08 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Jakub,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Jakub Pavlik <jakub.pavlik at tcpcloud.eu> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> it took us 2 years of hard working to get these official. OpenStack-Salt is
>> now used by around 40 production deployments and it is focused very on
>> operation and popularity is growing. You are removing the project week after
>> one of top contributor announced that they will use that as part of
>> solution. We made a mistakes, however I do not think that is reason to
>> remove us. I do no think that quality of the project is measured like this.
>> Our PTL got ill and did not do properly his job for last 3 weeks, but this
>> can happen anybody.
>>
>>   It is up to you. If you think that we are useless for community, then
>> remove us and we will have to continue outside of this community. However
>> growing successful use cases will not be under official openstack community,
>> which makes my feeling bad.
> Data points so far are:
> 1. No response during Barcelona planning for rooms
> 2. Lack of candidates for PTL election
> 3. No activity in the releases/ repository hence no entries in
> https://releases.openstack.org/
> 4. Meetings are not so regular?
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_salt/2016/ (supposed
> to be weekly)
> 5. Is the specs repo really active?
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/openstack-salt-specs/ is the
> work being done elsewhere?
> 6. Is there an effort to add stuff to the CI jobs running on openstack
> infrastructure? (can't seem to find much
> http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=salt&i=nope&files=zuul%2Flayout.yaml&repos=project-config)
>
> I'll stop here and switch to #openstack-salt channel to help work you
> all through if there is a consensus/willingness from the
> openstack-salt team that there's significant work to be done. If you
> think you are better off not on the governance, that would be your
> call as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Dims
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jakub
>>
>>
>> On 21.9.2016 21:03, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Filip Pytloun's message of 2016-09-21 20:36:42 +0200:
>>>> On 2016/09/21 13:23, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>>> The idea of splitting the contributor list comes up pretty regularly
>>>>> and we rehash the same suggestions each time.  Given that what we
>>>>> have now worked fine for 57 of the 59 offical teams (the Astara
>>>>> team knew in advance it would not have a PTL running, and Piet had
>>>>> some sort of technical issue submitting his candidacy for the UX
>>>>> team), I'm not yet convinced that we need to make large-scale changes
>>>>> to our community communication standard practices in support of the
>>>>> 2 remaining teams.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not to say that the system we have now is perfect, but we
>>>>> can't realistically support multiple systems at the same time.  We
>>>>> need everyone to use the same system, otherwise we have (even more)
>>>>> fragmented communication. So, we either need everyone to agree to
>>>>> some new system and then have people step forward to implement it,
>>>>> or we need to all agree to do our best to use the system we have
>>>>> in place now.
>>>> I think it may work as is (with proper mail filters), but as someone
>>>> already
>>>> mentioned in this thread it would be better to have someone more
>>>> experienced
>>>> in Openstack community projects as a core team member or PTL to catch all
>>>> these things otherwise it may happen that inexperienced PTL/team just
>>>> miss
>>>> something like now.
>>> If the team needs help, please ask for it. We should be able to find
>>> someone to do a little mentoring and provide some guidance.
>>>
>>>> Still I don't think it's such a big issue to just fire project from Big
>>>> Tent -
>>>> who will benefit from that? Again someone already mentioned what will it
>>>> mean
>>>> for such team (loss of potencial developers, etc.).
>>>> Moreover for teams who are actively working on project as it seems that
>>>> both
>>>> OpenStackSalt and Security teams do.
>>> Signing up to be a part of the big tent is not free. Membership comes
>>> with expectations and obligations. Failing to meet those may be an
>>> indication that the team isn't ready, or that membership is not a good
>>> fit.
>>>
>>>> And I thought that real work on a project is our primary goal.. this
>>>> situation
>>>> is like loosing job when I left dirty coffee cup at my workspace.
>>> I hope you consider team leadership and community participation to
>>> be more important than your analogy implies.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>>>> Did your release liaison follow the instructions to make that happen?
>>>>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/releases/tree/README.rst
>>>> That seems to be the reason. There was new release planned with support
>>>> for
>>>> containerized deployment which would follow that guide (as first releases
>>>> were
>>>> done during/shortly after openstack-salt move to Big Tent).
>>>> As mentioned above - more experienced PTL would be helpful here and we
>>>> are
>>>> currently talking with people who could fit that position.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I see no emails tagged with [salt] on the mailing list since March of
>>>>>>> this year, aside from this thread. Are you using a different communication
>>>>>>> channel for team coordination? You mention IRC, but how are new contributors
>>>>>>> expected to find you?
>>>>>> Yes, we are using openstack-salt channel and openstack meetings over
>>>>>> IRC. This channel is mentioned eg. in readme here [1] and community
>>>>>> meetings page [2] which are on weekly basis (logs [3]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also had a couple of people comming to team IRC talking to us about
>>>>>> project
>>>>>> so I believe they can find the way to contact us even without our heavy
>>>>>> activity at openstack-dev (which should be better as I admitted).
>>>>> That works great for folks in your timezones. It's less useful for
>>>>> anyone who isn't around at the same time as you, which is one reason
>>>>> our community emphasizes using email communications. Email gives
>>>>> you asynchronous discussions for timezone coverage, allows folks
>>>>> who are traveling or off work for a period to catch up on and
>>>>> participate in discussions later, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/openstack/openstack-salt
>>>>>> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/openstack-salt
>>>>>> [3] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_salt/2016/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I don't want to excuse our fault. In case it's not too
>>>>>>>> late,
>>>>>>>> we will try to be more active in mailing lists like openstack-dev and
>>>>>>>> not miss such important events next time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] http://stackalytics.com/?module=openstacksalt-group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Filip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Thierry Carrez
>>>>>>>> <thierry at openstack.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As announced previously[1][2], there were no PTL candidates within
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> election deadline for a number of official OpenStack project teams:
>>>>>>>>> Astara, UX, OpenStackSalt and Security.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the Astara case, the current team working on it would like to
>>>>>>>>> abandon
>>>>>>>>> the project (and let it be available for any new team who wishes to
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> it away). A change should be proposed really soon now to go in that
>>>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the UX case, the current PTL (Piet Kruithof) very quickly
>>>>>>>>> reacted,
>>>>>>>>> explained his error and asked to be considered for the position for
>>>>>>>>> Ocata. The TC will officialize his nomination at the next meeting,
>>>>>>>>> together with the newly elected PTLs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That leaves us with OpenStackSalt and Security, where nobody reacted
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the announcement that we are missing PTL candidates. That points to
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> real disconnect between those teams and the rest of the community.
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> if you didn't have the election schedule in mind, it was pretty hard
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> miss all the PTL nominations in the email last week.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The majority of TC members present at the meeting yesterday
>>>>>>>>> suggested
>>>>>>>>> that those project teams should be removed from the Big Tent, with
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> design summit space allocation slightly reduced to match that (and
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> room for other not-yet-official teams).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the case of OpenStackSalt, it's a relatively new addition, and if
>>>>>>>>> they get their act together they could probably be re-proposed in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> future. In the case of Security, it points to a more significant
>>>>>>>>> disconnect (since it's not the first time the PTL misses the
>>>>>>>>> nomination
>>>>>>>>> call). We definitely still need to care about Security (and we also
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> a home for the Vulnerability Management team), but I think the
>>>>>>>>> "Security
>>>>>>>>> team" acts more like a workgroup than as an official project team,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> evidenced by the fact that nobody in that team reacted to the lack
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> PTL nomination, or the announcement that the team missed the bus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The suggested way forward there would be to remove the "Security
>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>> team", have the Vulnerability Management Team file to be its own
>>>>>>>>> official project team (in the same vein as the stable maintenance
>>>>>>>>> team),
>>>>>>>>> and have Security be just a workgroup rather than a project team.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts, comments ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
>>>>>>>>> September/103904.html
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
>>>>>>>>> September/103939.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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Jakub Pavlik
>> CTO
>>
>> [tcp ◕ cloud]
>>
>> +420 602 177 027
>> jakub.pavlik at tcpcloud.eu
>>
>> tcp cloud a.s.
>> Thamova 16
>> 186 00 Praha 8 - Karlin
>> Czech republic
>> http://tcpcloud.eu
>> http://opentcpcloud.org
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

Being removed from governance does not preclude one from being added in 
the future.

As stated many ways already, being in the governance repo means you 
agree to be governed. If you are unaware of how we govern it is hard to 
uphold your end of the agreement.

Should the decision be to remove this project (or any other), removal is 
simply an acknowledgement of current status. This project is not 
governed. Should you wish to be governed, and uphold your end of that 
agreement, you can apply to be re-added to governance in the future.

Thanks,
Anita.