Open Stack

Hi,

> Hey JP,
> 
> > Last time we tried this, we were stopped by bureaucracy and technical
> > details (IIRC?) which shouldn't be there anymore.
> > I don't see a reason why this team couldn't move to a SIG now, which would
> > be a lightweight governance model for you.
> > You would keep your repos, and can still propose releases (if I am not
> > mistaken). Things shouldn't change much. You can decide to change/add
> > chair people when you want, and don't have to sign off a PTL for 6 months
> > at elections, which was the most concerning matter for your projects IIRC
> > (which lead to missed elections deadlines in the past).
> 
> This sounds good to me. you said "shouldn't change much". can you
> clarify if you know what actually changes other than not being in
> PTL-only activities? what about logistics like irc channel naming etc?
> 

I have to admit I was not very familiar with the differences between a project team and a SIG. After reading [1] and [2],
I think this could work for us as a team. A SIG can own repositories, have its own IRC channel, and the
accountability is reduced, since their output is not officially considered "part of the OpenStack release".

Regards,
Javier

[1] - https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/comparison-of-official-group-structures.html
[2] - https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/reference/sig-guideline.html

> > I hope that this SIG can evolve in the future, to group not only RPM
> > packaging, but also other packaging mechanism that want to follow under
> > that new banner. That's why I proposed the SIG to be named "Packaging"
> > instead. It's up to the community now to gather around the same banner :)
> 
> We always collaborated with Debian-style packaging folks as far as it
> seemed fit, however the real collaboration overlap has always been
> very very small. if we have contributors with debian-style packaging
> interested in joining, then yes, we should use the more generic term.
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Dirk
> 
>