Open Stack

 ---- On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 05:55:27 -0800  Sean Mooney  wrote --- 
 > On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 08:39 -0500, James Slagle wrote:
 > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:25 AM Sean Mooney smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
 > > 
 > > > If its not clear by my tone below i am very much speaking in my personal
 > > > capsity
 > > > not in a redhat one just to be explict about that up front.
 > > > On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 13:50 +0100, Dmitriy Rabotyagov wrote:
 > > > > Sorry, let me not agree with this approach. TripleO is a project under
 > > > > OpenStack governance. Any project under the governance *must* follow 4
 > > > > opens [1]. At the same time, if the project happens to be maintained
 > > > > by a single vendor, it doesn't make it any special from any other
 > > > > project that has healthy contribution diversity. So community
 > > > > consensus can't be neglected in my opinion.
 > > > while i hesitate to disagree with my colleague i strongly agree with this
 > > > statement. regardless of the makeup of the contibutor base
 > > > by being listed under the grovernace of the openstack foundation and being
 > > > recognised as a offical openatck porject Tripleo is not a "RedHat Project"
 > > > or thrid party project and is subject to same rules and procedures as
 > > > any other offical openstack project.
 > > > > 
 > > > > While I fully understand that the main contributor of the project is
 > > > > quitting it and resuming to maintain only some stable branches that
 > > > > are currently in an Extended Maintenance, until they will be EOLed, I
 > > > > personally don't think that dropping content/removing later branches
 > > > > or releases does follow 4 opens. Even though we might not be aware of
 > > > > contributors willing to step in in further maintenance of the project,
 > > > > it doesn't mean they won't show up in some time when the word will be
 > > > > spread.
 > > > i tend to agree i think the stable/zed branch since it has been release
 > > > should not be retired
 > > > it should be left open so that anyone who deployed it can fix bug and
 > > > maintaien it.
 > > > this might require addiing new memeber to the core team or other changes
 > > > but
 > > > if there are people willing to put in the work we shoudl afford them the
 > > > opertunity.
 > > > its been a very long time since there was any kind fo diversity in the
 > > > triplo comunity but
 > > > there have been limisted contibutions form other like 99cloud although
 > > > after train that sharpely
 > > > decreased.
 > > > https://www.stackalytics.io/?module=tripleo-group&release=train
 > > > there really has not been any significant multi vendor contibution since
 > > > HP stopped workign on
 > > > tripleo in kilo but that does not mean there are not comunity users of
 > > > this may want
 > > > to maintain it instead of move there production cloud to a diffent
 > > > technology.
 > > > or perhaps maintain it so that they can plan to move to a diffent
 > > > deployment approch in a timely manner.
 > > > 
 > > 
 > > Yes, leaving the branches around also seems reasonable. In whatever way
 > > that needs to be represented in terms of who, how, or if, they are
 > > maintained, I can help represent that either through docs or governance
 > > patches, whichever is deemed appropriate.
 > i would personally update the readme wiht a statemnt that is deprecated and that limited
 > supprot is aviable or something like that to let people know they shoudl not plan or perform new
 > deployment on those later versions. that part of the deprecation process anyway.
 > advertising the support status to the possible users.
 > it might make sense to transition stable/zed to EM too if there is no intention to do addtional releases.
 > if  maintainers appear that could be reverted by them. if not its reflective of reality.

yes, that is the best we can do here to mention the situation for stable/zed in README.rst with details
on where to continue the future maintenance if any one would like to do.

-gmann

 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 >