Open Stack

On 17/08/18 11:51, Chris Dent wrote:
> One of the questions that has come up on the etherpad is about how
> placement should be positioned, as a project, after the extraction.
> The options are:
> 
> * A repo within the compute project
> * Its own project, either:
>    * working towards being official and governed
>    * official and governed from the start

So since this is under heavy discussion in #openstack-tc, and Ed asked 
for folks who are not invested in either side, allow me to offer this 
suggestion:

It just doesn't matter.

The really important thing here, and it sounds like one that everybody 
agrees on, is that placement gets split out into its own repo. That will 
enable things to move forward both technically (helping other projects 
to more easily consume it) and socially (allowing it to use a separate 
Gerrit ACL so it can add additional core reviewers with +2 rights only 
on that repo). So let's focus on getting that done.

It seems unlikely to me that having the placement repo technically under 
the governance of the Nova project will present anywhere near the level 
of obstacle to other projects using as having it in the same repo as 
Nova currently does, if they are even aware of it at all. Conversely, I 
consider it equally unlikely that placement living outside of the Nova 
umbrella altogether would result in significant divergence between its 
interests and those of Nova.

If you want my personal opinion then I'm a big believer in incremental 
change. So, despite recognising that it is born of long experience of 
which I have been blissfully mostly unaware, I have to disagree with 
Chris's position that if anybody lets you change something then you 
should try to change as much as possible in case they don't let you try 
again. (In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that those kinds of 
speculative changes are a contributing factor in making people reluctant 
to allow anything to happen at all.) So I'd suggest splitting the repo, 
trying things out for a while within Nova's governance, and then 
re-evaluating. If there are that point specific problems that separate 
governance would appear to address, then it's only a trivial governance 
patch and a PTL election away. It should also be much easier to get 
consensus at that point than it is at this distance where we're only 
speculating what things will be like after the extraction.

I'd like to point out for the record that Mel already said this and said 
it better and is AFAICT pretty much never wrong :)

cheers,
Zane.