Open Stack

Excerpts from corvus's message of 2018-05-30 10:09:23 -0700:
> 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 don't want to make too much out of it, but it does feel a bit odd
to have a 2 person body where 1 person has the final decision power. :-)

Having 2 people per official team (including winterscale) would
give us more depth of coverage overall (allowing for quorum when
someone is on vacation, for example).  In the short term, it also
has the benefit of having twice as many people involved.

> 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.

OK, so not on every change but on the significant ones that might affect
more than one project. Ideally any sort of conflict would be worked out
in advance, but it's good to have the process in place to resolve
problems before they come up.

Doug