Open Stack

Hi,

I had a chat with my team and we think it would be best if we could keep Winstackers as a separate team.

This is mostly because of the associated projects, which are essential for the Windows – Openstack integration effort. Other teams may not be interested in adopting those projects, which would be required if we chose the SIG route.

Despite missing this election, I can assure you that we’re quite active in this endeavor. I’m willing to take the PTL role, offloading this task from Claudiu, whose time was quite limited recently.

Regards,
Lucian Petrut
Cloudbase Solutions
________________________________________
From: Mohammed Naser [mnaser at vexxhost.com]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Thierry Carrez
Cc: OpenStack Discuss
Subject: Re: [winstackers][powervmstackers][tc] removing winstackers and PowerVMStackers from TC governance

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:10 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

I echo all of this and I think at this point, it's better for the
deliverables to be
within a SIG.

> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>


--
Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
-----------------------------------------------------
D. 514-316-8872
D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
E. mnaser at vexxhost.com
W. http://vexxhost.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190911/7d2de270/attachment.html>