Open Stack

Divya K Konoor wrote:
> Missing the deadline for a PTL nomination cannot be the reason for 
> removing governance.

I agree with that, but missing the deadline twice in a row is certainly 
a sign of some disconnect with the rest of the OpenStack community. 
Project teams require a minimal amount of reactivity and presence, so it 
is fair to question whether PowerVMStackers should continue as a project 
team in the future.

> PowerVMStackers continue to be an active project 
> and would want to be continued to be governed under OpenStack. For PTL, 
> an eligible candidate can still be appointed .

There is another option, to stay under OpenStack governance but without 
the constraints of a full project team: PowerVMStackers could be made an 
OpenStack SIG.

I already proposed that 6 months ago (last time there was no PTL nominee 
for the team), on the grounds that interest in PowerVM was clearly a 
special interest, and a SIG might be a better way to regroup people 
interested in supporting PowerVM in OpenStack.

The objection back then was that PowerVMStackers maintained a number of 
PowerVM-related code, plugins and drivers that should ideally be adopted 
by their consuming project teams (nova, neutron, ceilometer), and that 
making it a SIG would endanger that adoption process.

I still think it makes sense to consider PowerVMStackers as a Special 
Interest Group. As long as the PowerVM-related code is not adopted by 
the consuming projects, it is arguably a special interest, and not a 
completely-integrated part of OpenStack components.

The only difference in being a SIG (compared to being a project team) 
would be to reduce the amount of mandatory tasks (like designating a PTL 
every 6 months). You would still be able to own repositories, get room 
at OpenStack events, vote on TC election...

It would seem to be the best solution in your case.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)