Open Stack

Hello,

Thanks for bringing this back to life.

As I am sure some are aware I have been mostly absent from DIB lately,
so don't let me stop you all from going forward with this or any of the
other plans. I just wanted to do a bit of a braindump on my thought
process from a while back on why I never went through with trying to
become an independent openstack project team.

The main issue that prevented me from going forward with this was that I
worried we were too small for it to work effectively.  IME DIB tends to
have a fair amount of drive by contributors and a very small (roughly
2-3)  set of main contributors who are very part-time and who certainly
aren't primarily focused on DIB (or even upstream OpenStack).
Fortunately, I think the project does fine with this setup: The number
of new features scales up or down to meet our contributor capacity and
we haven't required a ton of firefighting in recent memory. Not only
that, we actually seem to be extremely stable in this setup which is
great given how we can break many other projects in ways which are non
trivial to debug.

Our low contributor capacity does pose some problems when you try to
become an OpenStack project team though. Firstly, someone needs to agree
to be PTL and, essentially, take the responsibilities seriously [1]. In
addition to the issue of having someone willing to do this, I worried
that the responsibilities would take up a non trivial amount of time
(for our low activity project) which previously went to other tasks
keeping the project afloat. I also was not sure we would be doing anyone
any favors if a cycle or two down the road we ended up in a spot where
no one is interested in running for PTL even though the project itself
is doing fine. Maybe some of the TC folks can correct me if i'm wrong
but that seems to create a fair bit of churn where a decision has to be
made on whether to attic the project or do something else like appoint a
PTL.

All that to say - If we decide to go the route of becoming on
independent openstack project would we have someone willing to be PTL
and do we think that would be an effective use of our time?



WRT us being consumed by glance or infra - I think either of these could
work. I hadn't heard anything to the effect of infra not wanting us, but
AFAIK none of us has stepped up to really ask. One issue with infra is
that, typically, OpenStack projects do not depend directly on infra
projects. I am sure others have a better idea of the pitfalls here. OTOH
we have a pretty large shared set of knowledge between DIB and infra
which makes this option fairly attractive.

My primary concern with glance is that AFAIK the only relation we've had
historically is the word 'image' in our project description. That is to
say, I don't know of any shared knowledge between the contributor base.
As a result I am not really a fan of this option.

For both of these its not really an issue of whether we'd like to 'own'
the project IMO (its all the same open source project after all, we
don't own it). It's mostly a matter of whether its technically feasible
(e.g. are there issues with infra due to things like dependencies) and
whether it makes any sense from a collaboration standpoint (otherwise
we'll end up right back where we are but with another parent project
team).



I'd like to propose a third option which I think may be best - We could
become an independent non-openstack project hosted by openstack infra.
This would allow us to effectively continue operating as we do today
which is IMO ideal. Furthermore, this would resolve some of the issues
we've had relating to the release process where we desired to be
release:independent and tag our own releases (we would no longer be of
the release team's concern rather than need to be special cased). I feel
like we've been effectively operating in this manner (a non openstack
independent project) so it seems a natural fit to me. Hopefully some of
the more openstack-process enlightened can chime in confirming that this
is doable and ok or if theres some big issues I am missing here...


HTH,
Greg

--

1: https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/ptl.html


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017, at 03:31 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Yolanda Robla Mota <yroblamo at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > From my point of view, i've been using that either on infra with
> > puppet-infracloud, glean.. and now with TripleO. So in my opinion, it shall
> > be an independent project, with core contributors from both sides.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:11:42PM -0500, James Slagle wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Paul Belanger
> >> > > <pabelanger at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Greetings,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> With the containerization[1] of tripleo, I'd like to know more about
> >> > >> the future of
> >> > >> diskimage-builder as it relates to the tripleo project.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Reading the recently approved spec for containers, container (image)
> >> > >> builds are
> >> > >> no longer under the control of tripleo; by kolla. Where does this
> >> > >> leave
> >> > >> diskimage-builder as a project under tripleo?  I specifically ask,
> >> > >> because I'm
> >> > >> wanting to start down the path of using diskimage-builder as an
> >> > >> interface to
> >> > >> containers.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Basically, is it time to move diskimage-builder out from the tripleo
> >> > >> project
> >> > >> into another, or its own? Or is tripleo wanting to more forward on
> >> > >> development
> >> > >> efforts on diskimage-builder.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looking at stats on who is actively contributing into DIB:
> >> > > http://stackalytics.com/?module=diskimage-builder
> >> > >
> >> > > It seems that we have some folks from infra and some folks on dib
> >> > > only, and a few contributors from TripleO.
> >> > >
> >> > > I guess the best option is to ask DIB contributors: do you want to own
> >> > > the project you're committing to?
> >> > > If not, is it something that should stay in TripleO (imo no) or move
> >> > > into openstack-infra (imo yes, if infra agrees).
> >> > >
> >> > > With my PTL hat, I'm really open to this thing and I wouldn't mind to
> >> > > transfer ownership to another group.
> >> >
> >> > I was under the impression it was already it's own project team based
> >> > on:
> >> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099805.html
> >> >
> >> > It looks like the change was never made in governance however.
> >> >
> >> Yes, it just looks like Greg created new core reviewers, not officially
> >> breaking
> >> away from tripleo.
> >>
> >> If everybody is on board with moving diskimage-builder outside of tripleo,
> >> we
> >> need to decided where it lives. Two options come to mind:
> >>
> >> 1) Move diskimage-builder into own (big tent?) project. Setup a new PTL,
> >> etc.
> 
> Let's move forward with this one if everybody agrees on that.
> 
> DIB folks: please confirm on this thread that you're ok to move out
> DIB from TripleO and be an independent project.
> Also please decide if we want it part of the Big Tent or not (it will
> require a PTL).
> 
> >> 2) Move diskimage-builder into openstack-infra (fungi PTL).
> 
> I don't think Infra wants to carry this one.
> 
> >> 3) Keep diskimage-builder under tripleo (EmilienM PTL).
> 
> We don't want to carry this one anymore for the reasons mentioned in
> that thread.
> 
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> > The reason I -1'd Paul's TripleO spec and suggested it be proposed to
> >> > diskimage-builder was due to:
> >> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-June/098560.html
> >> > and
> >> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/336109/
> >> >
> >> > I just want to make sure the right set of reviewers who are driving
> >> > dib development see the spec proposal.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > -- James Slagle
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > __________________________________________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yolanda Robla Mota
> > NFV Partner Engineer
> > yroblamo at redhat.com
> > +34 605641639
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Emilien Macchi
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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