Open Stack

With the advent Thierry's weekly status reports[^1] on the proposals
currently under review by the TC and the optionality of the weekly
TC meetings, this report becomes less about meeting minutes and more
about reporting on the things that crossed my TC radar that seemed
important and/or that seemed like they could do with more input.

This week has no TC meeting. The plan is that discussion will occur
either asynchronously in mailing list threads on the "opentack-dev"
list or in gerrit reviews in the governance project[^2] or for
casual chats use IRC and the #openstack-dev channel[^3].

[^1]: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/117047.html>
[^2]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance+status:open>
[^3]: The concept of office hours is being introduced: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467256/>

# Pending Stuff

## The need to talk about postgreSQL

There's ongoing discussion about how to deal with the position of
postgreSQL in the attention of the community. There are deployments
that use it and the documentation mentions it, but the attention of
most developers and all tests is not upon it. It is upon MySQL (and
its variants) instead.

There's agreement that this needs to be dealt with, but the degree
of change is debated, if not hotly then at least verbosely. An
initial review was posted proposing we clear up the document and
indicate a path forward that recognized an existing MySQL
orientation:

> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427880/>

I felt this was too wordy, too MySQL oriented, and left out an
important step: agitate with the board. It was easier to explain
this in an alternative version resulting in:

> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/465589/>

Meanwhile discussion had begun (and still continues) in an email
thread:

> <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116642.html>

Observing all this, Monty noticed that there is a philosophical
chasm that must be bridged before we can truly resolve this issue,
so he started yet another thread:

> <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/117148.html>

The outcome of that thread and these resolutions is likely to have a
fairly significant impact on how we think about managing dependent
services in OpenStack. There's a lot to digest behind those links
but on the scale of "stuff the TC is doing that will have impact"
this is probably one of them.

## Draft Vision for the TC

The draft vision for the TC[^4] got feedback on the review, via
survey[^5] and at the forum[^6]. Effort is now in progress to
incorporate that feedback and create something that is easier to
comprehend and will make the actual vision more clear. One common
bit of feedback was that the document needs a preamble and other
structural cues so that people get what it is trying to do.
johnthetubaguy, dtroyer and I (cdent) are on the hook for doing this
next phase of work. Feel free to contact one of us (or leave a
comment on the review, or send some email) if you feel like you have
something to add.

[^4]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/>
[^5]: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzHPP2EQh2DZWGTj_VbhwhtsDQebAgqldyi1MHm6QpE>
[^6]:
<https://www.openstack.org/videos/boston-2017/the-openstack-technical-committee-vision-for-2019-updates-stories-and-q-and-a>

# Dropped Stuff

_A section with reminders of things that were happening or were
going to happen then either stopped without resolution or never
started in the first place._

## OpenStack moving too fast and too slow

A thread was started on this[^7]. It got huge. While there were many
subtopics, one of the larger ones was the desire for there to be a
long term support release. There were a few different reactions to
this, inaccurately paraphrased as:

* That we have any stable releases at all in the upstream is pretty
   amazing, some global projects don't bother, it's usually a
   downstream problem.
* Great idea, please provide some of the resources required to make
   it happen, the OpenStack community is not an unlimited supply of
   free labor.

Then summit happened, people moved on to other things and there
wasn't much in the way of resolution. Is there anything we could or
should be doing here?

If having LTS is that much of a big deal, then it is something which
the Foundation Board of Directors must be convinced is a priority.
Early in this process I had suggested we at least write a resolution
that repeats (in nicer form) the second bullet point above. We could
do that. There's also a new plan to create a top 5 help wanted
list[^8]. Doing LTS is probably too big for that, but "stable branch
reviews" is not.

[^7]: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116298.html>
[^8]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466684/>

-- 
Chris Dent                  ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)       https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent