Open Stack

Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'.

Thanks and Regards
Shiv



On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L <
john.l.villalovos at intel.com> wrote:

> Thanks for sending this out.
>
>
>
> I would vote for Option 1.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshchelokovskyy at mirantis.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of
> openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal
> program
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like
> to start a discussion on the subject.
>
>
>
> A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of
> necessity to do two things:
>
>
>
> -  test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy)
> feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and
>
> - do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not
> supported by other various openstack/networking-* projects.
>
>
>
> Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was
> under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any
> official program.
>
>
>
> Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing
> (similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already
> being used in production.
>
>
>
> Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of
> those are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working
> for the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and
> people come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s
> stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program
> might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate
> troubles.
>
>
>
> Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation:
>
>
>
> 1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance,
> effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of  n-g-s similar
> to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core
> team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy
> projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is
> quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases;
>
>
>
> 2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the
> n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks;
>
>
>
> 3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is
> already under ironic governance.
>
>
>
> As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really
> fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much
> IMHO.
>
>
>
> Eager to hear your comments and proposals.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
>
> Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
>
> Senior Software Engineer
>
> Mirantis Inc
>
> www.mirantis.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20171115/75dae09e/attachment.html>