Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-05-29 10:53:03 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote:
>> It is my understanding that the infra team will enforce the
>> following conditions when a repo import request is received:
>>
>> * The repo must be licensed under an OSI-approved open source
>> license.
> 
> That has been our custom, but we should add a statement to this
> effect in the aforementioned document.
> 
>> * If the repo is a fork of another project, there must be (public)
>> evidence of an attempt to co-ordinate with the upstream first.
> 
> I don't recall this ever being mandated, though the project-config
> reviewers do often provide suggestions to project creators such as
> places in the existing community with which they might consider
> cooperating/collaborating.

Right, that was never a rule (for Stackforge or the current 
"non-official project hosting" space), and I doubt very much we have 
enforced it in the past. FWIW we currently host forks of gitdm, gerrit, 
as well as copies of all sorts of JS code under xstatic-*. That said, I 
think consulting upstream in case of code copies/forks is a good 
practice to add in the future.

> [...]
>> In addition, I think we should require projects hosted on our
>> infrastructure to agree to other policies:
>>
>> * Adhere to the OpenStack Foundation Code of Conduct.
> 
> This seems like a reasonable addition to our hosting requirements.
> 
>> * Not misrepresent their relationship to the official OpenStack
>> project or the Foundation. Ideally we'd come up with language that
>> they *can* use to describe their status, such as "hosted on the
>> OpenStack infrastructure".
> 
> Also a great suggestion. We sort of say that in the "what being an
> unoffocial project is not" bullet list, but it could use some
> fleshing out.
"The OpenStack infrastructure" is likely to be changed in the near 
future to a more neutral name, but I would keep the "hosted on" language 
to describe the relationship.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)