[PowerVMStackers][Winstackers][uc][tc] Encourage to transform from project to SIG

William M Edmonds - edmondsw@us.ibm.com edmondsw at us.ibm.com
Wed Apr 10 12:59:20 UTC 2019


On 4/10/19, 5:24 AM, "Tony Breeds" <tony at bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Tony Breeds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:22:43PM -0500, Eric Fried wrote:
> > > > > core-team sure, but what is it that a PTL does/can do that a SIG chair
> > > > > can't?
> > > > 
> > > > Ack patches in other repositories like release, governance, etc.? But
> > > > yeah, no reason a SIG chair couldn't also do those things, as long as
> > > > the vote is recognized the same way.
> > > 
> > > I can't speak to the TC but I think that a SIG chair would basically be
> > > a Liaison in the releases repo and we already know how to handle that.
> > 
> > So.. switching to my release management hat... that actually brings up an
> > interesting point, and a good reason to keep PowerVMStackers and Winstackers
> > the same.
> > 
> > Project teams basically produce "OpenStack" the software release, while SIGs
> > work to make "OpenStack" more relevant for specific cases. While SIGs can
> > produce code and can own git repositories, we currently have no SIG that
> > owns *deliverables* being made part of the regular OpenStack release.
> > 
> > The release team only tracks project teams, and it's simpler if it stays
> > that way. It's also a really good delineation as to what is project team
> > territory and what is SIG territory.
> > 
> > Both PowerVMStackers or WinStackers currently produce deliverables that are
> > released under a cycle-based model and are included in the final "OpenStack"
> > release. Switching those teams to become SIGs would have an additional
> > consequence: it would remove those deliverables from the "OpenStack"
> > release.
>
> Only *if* those repos don't get 'adopted' by another project.
> 
> In the hypothetical example we're looking at:
> openstack/nova-powervm would come under the governance of nova (and
> therefore still have all the 'rights' of a project) (same with Telemetry
> and Neutron).  The SIG would be there to maintain consistency across the
> 3 project teams.
> 
> I feel like that's a better outcome but it isn't the actual proposal
> we started discussing and I kinda de-railed the conversation ... sorry.
> 
> > So unless those teams actually want that, or the TC decides to do that, I
> > don't think we should switch those teams to SIGs.
> 
> So the original proposal which would be a straight transition doesn't
> work for this reason which is good to know

Now we're tracking. This (both Thierry's and Tony's emails here) is what I was trying to say. Sorry I wasn't clearer, but you got there anyway... Thanks.



More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list