Open Stack

On 07/10/2013 02:53 PM, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
> Board & TC Members,
> 
>  
> 
> Alan and I have planned another 2 hour discussion session around the
> spider chart / what is core action plan.  The goal for this meeting is
> to refine the 6 positions that we’ve articulated and identify additional
> ones needed (my gut says, 4+ more).
> 
>  
> 
> If you have not been part of this meeting, we’ll explain what’s going on
> in the 1^st 15 minutes (and there’s information in the etherpad too). 
> I’m working on a post about it too, but you’ll have to wait for that.

> Background info: https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2013-SpiderDiscussion

This is the first time I've seen this.  I must admit that my initial
reaction is that I'm not comfortable with the direction this seems to be
taking.

I understand the need to have a solid definition of what "core" means.
I also assume that the goal here is to eventually arrive at some set of
definitions and policies.

However, some of the specific items discussed on this etherpad are
things that are in my opinion, in TC (or even project specific
governance) territory, and should be considered out of scope for any
policy coming from the board.

Some specific areas of concern to me:

* In the introduction, the secondary issue identified is whether
projects should be pluggable.  I believe this is TC territory.

* Position statement 1, "plug-in model expected for projects".  I
believe this is completely TC territory.

* Position statement 2, "API extension model expected for plugin-ins".
Again, I believe this is completely TC territory.

* Position statement 3, "Tempest used as basis for OpenStack mark".  I
think this is the wrong approach to take.  I think any position should
assume a specific test suite.  It should identify *what* exactly should
be covered in tests.  Using tempest is an implementation detail that
comes after deciding *what*.  Do you want to verify just against core
APIs?  All API extensions?  Whatever happens to be tested by tempest
today doesn't seem like a good definition.

* In the "questions to ask" section, I disagree with many of things even
being questions asked in this forum.  I won't go through all of them
individually.

I don't have answers here, but I wanted to raise my discomfort and see
if anyone else felt similarly.

Thanks,

-- 
Russell Bryant