Open Stack

On 04/18/2014 12:14 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> However, the specs process that nova, qa, and now neutron are using
>> seems quite useful to create a detailed set of guidelines that gather
>> agreement from the technical leadership of the project(s). It also would
>> let operators weigh in on this, and as they are one of the most affected
>> people by it, having their opinions would be great.
>>
>> So I'd like to create some cross project specs repository, preferably
>> soon, so some initial work on this could be done prior to summit and can
>> be referenced when appropriate. One of the open questions is who has +A
>> on this? It could be the TC, as in some ways these are similar to
>> governance docs that affect all the projects. Honestly, to me who has
>> finally +A is less important, because I think this is about concensus.
>> However it does need to exist for us to even work on the concensus part.
>>
>> So, question #1 - how would people feel about creating some cross
>> project specs repo RSN?
> 
> I'm not a complete fan of the idea. I mean, when does a given spec
> become cross-project ? Is it limited to blueprints that would affect
> EVERY project ? Is it accessible for blueprints that only affect 2
> projects ? Because there are a lot of those... and asking a TC+PTLs
> group to vet those sounds completely weird (the two involved PTLs should
> vet those).
> 
> That topic is basically why I wanted to have the cross-project workshop
> on "tracking incoming changes". I'm not sure separate repositories in
> each project are the solution. I can see a cross-project one quickly
> becoming abused, with the TC routinely overreaching into projects.
> 
> In an ideal world we would have a single repository, with multiple
> directories for each project and links to all affected projects, while
> still retaining per-project approvals and all. This is difficult to
> support in our repository / gerrit system...
> 
> Basically I'd prefer if we had that brainstorming first, before adding
> more repositories and more process.
> 
>> question #2 - what do we call it? os-specs, openstack-specs, tc-specs,
>> cross-project-specs?
>>
>> question #3 - who is the core team?
>>
>> I'd rather not wait until after summit, because I'd like some content
>> and back and forth before the operator days at summit, and doing that in
>> the wiki (where it currently is) doesn't really support that in the same
>> way.
> 
> I would still very much prefer if we waited. Maybe you can leverage
> other solutions to iterate on a doc in the mean time ? Etherpad maybe ?

Honestly, and etherpad is good for whiteboarding, but is really poor at
recording feedback past a couple of iterations.

I think barring an openstack-specs repo I'll probably start a github
repo and ask for pull requests / github issues there. I'd much rather do
this in gerrit, but I do really need a workflow where the document is
editable in "not a browser", and there can be detailed feedback given at
each point.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
sean at dague.net / sean.dague at samsung.com
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20140419/9886c98d/attachment.pgp>