[all][foundation][ecosystem] External projects under the foundation hat
kennelson11 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 20:02:57 UTC 2022
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:55 PM 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
As a TC member, I do not think that any project that is a part of OpenStack
should be hosted outside OpenDev. To be a part of OpenStack, you have to
be hosted in OpenDev. I think that splitting to use Github + OpenDev will
create too much complexity for new contributors in addition to everything
already mentioned about CI and release management further up in this
> > 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.
Documents should definitely get updated! +2!
> Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss