Open Stack

Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> writes:

>> * Move many of the git repos currently under the OpenStack project
>>   infrastructure team's governance to this new team.
>
> I'm curious about the "many" in that sentence. Which do you anticipate
> not moving, and if this new team replaces the existing team then who
> would end up owning the ones that do not move?

There are a lot.  Generally speaking, I think most of the custom
software, deployment tooling, and configuration would move.

An example of something that probably shouldn't move is
"openstack-zuul-jobs".  We still need people that are concerned with how
OpenStack uses the winterscale service.  I'm not sure whether that
should be its own team or should those functions get folded into other
teams.

>> * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure council" (to be renamed) which
>>   will govern the services that the team provides by vote.  The council
>>   will consist of the PTL of the winterscale infrastructure team and one
>>   member from each official OpenStack Foundation project.  Currently, as
>>   I understand it, there's only one: OpenStack.  But we expect kata,
>>   zuul, and others to be declared official in the not too distant
>>   future.  The winterscale representative (the PTL) will have
>>   tiebreaking and veto power over council decisions.
>
> That structure seems sound, although it means the council is going
> to be rather small (at least in the near term).  What sorts of
> decisions do you anticipate needing to be addressed by this council?

Yes, very small.  Perhaps we need an interim structure until it gets
larger?  Or perhaps just discipline and agreement that the two people on
it will consult with the necessary constituencies and represent them
well?

I expect the council not to have to vote very often.  Perhaps only on
substantial changes to services (bringing a new offering online,
retiring a disused offering, establishing parameters of a service).  As
an example, the recent thread on "terms of service" would be a good
topic for the council to settle.

>>   (This is structured loosely based on the current Infrastructure
>>   Council used by the OpenStack Project Infrastructure Team.)
>> 
>> None of this is obviously final.  My goal here is to give this effort a
>> name and a starting point so that we can discuss it and make progress.
>> 
>> -Jim
>> 
>
> Thanks for starting this thread! I've replied to both mailing lists
> because I wasn't sure which was more appropriate. Please let me
> know if I should focus future replies on one list.

Indeed, perhaps we should steer this toward openstack-dev now.  I'll
drop openstack-infra from future replies.

-Jim