Open Stack

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:52 PM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
wrote:

>  ---- On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:21:43 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady <
> Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote ----
>  > Comments inline
>  >
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
>  > Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:25 PM
>  > To: Kanevsky, Arkady
>  > Cc: openstack-discuss
>  > Subject: Re: [TC][Interop] process change proposal for interoperability
>  >
>  >
>  > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>  >
>  >  ---- On Mon, 03 May 2021 16:44:35 -0500 Kanevsky, Arkady <
> Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote ----  >  > Team,  > Based on guidance
> from the Board of Directors, Interop WG is changing its process.
>  >  > Please, review
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/787646__;Kw!!LpKI!1RLybM_OpAIJeUqG0ocwMvigt0Oce8Ib6npr_5Cnl2Z2oJV39MEpI0jni7DCectuuGGT$
> [review[.]opendev[.]org]  > Guidelines will no longer need to be approved
> by the board.
>  >  > It is approved by “committee” consisting of representatives from
> Interop WG, refstack, TC and Foundation marketplace administrator.
>  >
>  > Thanks, Arkady to push it on ML.
>  >
>  > For members who are new to this discussion, please check this
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/787646__;Kw!!LpKI!1RLybM_OpAIJeUqG0ocwMvigt0Oce8Ib6npr_5Cnl2Z2oJV39MEpI0jni7DCectuuGGT$
> [review[.]opendev[.]org] Also about the new 'Joint Committee's proposal in
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://review.opendev.org/c/osf/interop/*/784622/5/doc/source/process/CoreDefinition.rst*223__;KyM!!LpKI!1RLybM_OpAIJeUqG0ocwMvigt0Oce8Ib6npr_5Cnl2Z2oJV39MEpI0jni7DCeV9JbdRH$
> [review[.]opendev[.]org]
>  >
>  > With my TC hats on, I am not so clear about the new 'Joint Committee'
> proposal. As per the bylaws of the Foundation, section 4.1(b)(iii))[1], all
> the capabilities must be a subset of the OpenStack Technical Committee,
> which is what we have in the current process. All interop capabilities are
> discussed with the project teams (for which trademark program is) under
> OpenStack TC and QA (Tempest + Tempest plugins) provides the test coverage
> and maintenance of tests.
>  >
>  > [ak] My view that Interop WG is still under board, as it is part of
> Marketplace and Logo trademark program.
>  > But guidelines doc no longer need to go thru board for approval.
>  > That is why new process is created. Thus, the purpose of new "approval
> committee" of all parties that impact and impacted by guidelines.
>  >
>  > In the new process, making TC a decision making and co-ownership group
> in Interop WG is not very clear to me. InteropWG is a Board's working group
> and does not come under the OpenStack TC governance as such. Does the new
> process mean we are adding InteropWG under TC? or under the joint ownership
> of Board and TC?
>  >
>  > What I see as InteropWG is, a group of people working on the trademark
> program and all technical help can be asked from the OpenInfra project
>  > (OpenStack) to draft the guidelines and test coverage/maintenance. But
> keep all the approval and decision-making authority to InteropWG or Board.
>  > This is how it is currently. Also, we can keep encouraging the
> community members to join this group to fill the required number of
> resources.
>  >
>  > [ak] Board as it is now Open Infrastructure board, does not feel that
> it need to be involved on routing operation of Interop WG, including
> approval of new guidelines.
>  > Thus, the change in the process. Board wants to delegate its approval
> authority to us.
>
> Yes, I agree that Board does not need to review the guidelines as such.
> But here InteropWG will continue to do those as a single ownership body and
> take
> help from OpenStack Project Team, OpenStack Technical Committee for any
> query or so instead of co-owning the guidelines. OpenStack TC can own
> the test coverage of those which is what we are doing currently but for
> smooth working, I feel guidelines ownership should be 100% to InteropWG.
>

I agree the TC can impact the guidelines in an advisory role, as could
anyone else. Is the concern here that we need technical purview
specifically over test guidelines? If yes, could we have a list of interop
liaisons (default to PTLs or tact-sig liaisons) from the project teams in
this committee instead? The list of these liaisons can be dynamic and
informal, and we can discuss guidelines over this ML as we've done in the
past.


>
> -gmann
>
>  >
>  > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/__;!!LpKI!1RLybM_OpAIJeUqG0ocwMvigt0Oce8Ib6npr_5Cnl2Z2oJV39MEpI0jni7DCeURuNcUW$
> [openstack[.]org]
>  >
>  > -gmann
>  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Will be happy to discuss and provide more details.
>  >  > Looking for TC review and approval of the proposal before I present
> it to the board.
>  >  > Thanks,
>  >  >
>  >  > Arkady Kanevsky, Ph.D.
>  >  > SP Chief Technologist & DE
>  >  > Dell Technologies office of CTO
>  >  > Dell Inc. One Dell Way, MS PS2-91
>  >  > Round Rock, TX 78682, USA
>  >  > Phone: 512 7204955
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210504/bfaf68ca/attachment.html>