[all][foundation][ecosystem] External projects under the foundation hat
gmann at ghanshyammann.com
Thu Jun 23 18:04:24 UTC 2022
---- On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:55:01 -0500 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote ----
> 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
Sure. Sorry it that created the confusion but let's go with the plan I mentioned
below. At least we should explicitly update "OpenStack Infrastructure" to be
OpenDev or we mean this as anything else now. It should have been updated
at the time of when OpenDev was created but while updating it we should re-iterate
the requirement itself.
> > 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
More information about the openstack-discuss