Open Stack

 ---- On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 02:16:59 -0600 Jean-Philippe Evrard <openstack at a.spamming.party> wrote ----
 > Hello,
 > 
 > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, at 01:18, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > > Yes, those are the inconsistency we currently have in the Skyline 
 > > project, but that is not what they will stick to. In Yoga PTG[1], the 
 > > skyline team iterates through all these points and plans to
 > > improve those and be consistent with the other OpenStack projects. They 
 > > said they will
 > > work on packaging, PTI, using Oslo code etc.
 > >
 > > Boxiang Zhu mentioned the same in the governance patch also[2].
 > 
 > The questions I have still stand: Do we need to be more lax in the governance to not _require_ to follow the PTI (and/or have an intention to follow through)? Can the TC make an exception? When is the deadline for projects not following our testing to become compliant? What is the risk if the newly accepted project is not doing it? Moving it to a non-official project? Is that worth the effort? 

Those are all good points. We discussed around similar one in PTG and even considering if we
should introduce different level of the official project like CNCF (Sandbox, graduate) or our old
model or integrated vs incubated so that we can make it clear what projects are in-progress
of becoming the OpenStack way and which are already. But these add more complications
than solve the problem.

We agreed to try a new concept with 'Tech Preview' to monitor the project
health as well as the OpenStack consistency. Let's wait for that to be up and
there we can review/improve the process. Or PTI change if needed. We will
also define what is the deadline for projects to be in 'Tech Preview process.

Let's wait for the Skyline team to improve the things which hey already
mentioned to do and I think that can be done in a better way if they are
in OpenStack community. If they do not then it can be dropped from
OpenStack governance is nothing different from any existing
projects do that.

-gmann

 > 
 > > If they deny moving Skyline towards the OpenStack way of packing, 
 > > testing, using Oslo, etc., we should consider whether to reject the 
 > > OpenStack official project or modify our new
 > > project application criteria. But this is not the case, and they agree 
 > > to improve all those things.
 > 
 > I agree. Let's not talk hypothetics.
 > 
 > > Now we have more clear direction from them in the governance patch 
 > > also, so I feel this is good
 > > to go as an official project, and while they will be in OpenStack, we 
 > > all can help them to
 > > improve the things in OpenStack way.
 > 
 > Perfect, great news.
 > 
 > >
 > > Also, TC discussed in PTG the new concept of 'Tech pre-review' where we 
 > > will monitor
 > > such new projects' health, contribution, and direction going in the 
 > > direction of OpenStack way. This
 > >  'Tech pre-review'  is not up yet, so let's see how we define it.
 > 
 > I am sorry I have missed that from the notes I read.
 > 
 > >
 > > [1] 
 > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-October/025541.html
 > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/814037 
 > > [3] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-ptg#L263
 > >
 > > -gmann
 > >
 > >  > 
 > >  > Regards,
 > >  > Jean-Philippe Evrard (evrardjp)
 > >  > 
 > >  > [1]: 
 > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
 > >  > [2]: 
 > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/project-testing-interface.html
 > >  > [3]: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html
 > >  > [4]: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/golang.html
 > >  > [5]: https://github.com/Masterminds/glide
 > >  > [6]: https://travis-ci.org/github/Masterminds/glide
 > >  > 
 > >  >
 > 
 >