[all][foundation][ecosystem] External projects under the foundation hat

Jeremy Stanley fungi at yuggoth.org
Thu Jun 23 17:55:01 UTC 2022

On 2022-06-23 12:13:50 -0500 (-0500), Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>  ---- On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:30:24 -0500 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote ----
>  > On 2022-06-23 10:02:14 -0500 (-0500), Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>  > [...]
>  > > Yes, both are separate things and I think we are mixing both or at
>  > > least if we have such impression or governance is not so clear
>  > > about it then we should fix it. I replied in another reply about
>  > > governance point of view and IMO yes we should allow such new
>  > > projects hosted on new tooling or so but they need to make sure
>  > > all the help on CI/CD, release etc are taken care by them self or
>  > > they help opendev team to support such things. If either of them
>  > > cannot be done and they do not fulfill the PTI or any other new
>  > > project requirement criteria then they cannot be in OpenStack.
>  > [...]
>  > 
>  > "Governance" (the new project requirements document) right now
>  > clearly states that new projects need to perform their code review
>  > and gating tests on the "OpenStack Infrastructure" (the former name
>  > for the OpenDev Collaboratory because that document hasn't been
>  > updated to reflect the new name). You'll at a minimum need a vote of
>  > the TC to remove those restrictions, so all this assumes that the
>  > rest of the TC agrees with you that doing code review in GitHub with
>  > a separate GitHub-connected CI system is allowable for new official
>  > OpenStack project teams and deliverables.
>  > 
>  > This is not "governance point of view" it's *your* point of view, so
>  > please be clear that the decision is one the TC as a whole will need
>  > to make.
> I think there is some misunderstanding here. I have never said
> anywhere that this is "TC agreed view" off-course this is my
> opinion as a community member as well as TC member.
> Any community member or TC members can provide their opinion but
> that should not be considered as "TC agreed plan" until that is
> explicitly mentioned in email or TC pass the resolution. We can
> have different views from TC members or chair but any of that
> should not be considered as "TC agreement" unless mentioned. I
> think this is how every email discussion is.

You referred to it above as the "governance point of view" so I just
wanted to make certain you don't actually believe the governing
documents are unclear on this particular point, and understand that
OpenStack absolutely will need TC consensus on lifting a
longstanding restriction in order to allow an official deliverable
to be hosted outside the "OpenStack Infrastructure" (a.k.a. OpenDev

> I have this in my list to give a clear picture from TC as an
> agreed plan:
> Step1: Continue the discussion in ML (here)
> Step2: After having a good amount of feedback here and we still
>        not resolved the things, I will add this topic to TC
>        meeting and get the TC consensus.
> Step3: Propose Governance resolution or documentation update
> Step4: Update the same in ML as "TC agreed plan".

Thanks, this looks like a reasonable way forward.
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20220623/9ee7467f/attachment.sig>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list