Open Stack

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:39 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Sure, I'm happy to chair.
> 
> For your reading pleasure:
> 
>   http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-02-18-20.01.html

Nice discussions there ! I should be absent more often.

> I guess there's a few action items in there for you:
> 
>   - get us to consensus on DefCore feedback
>   - pare down the board/TC meeting ideas
>   - queue up KDS topic again for next week
>   - approve the minor governance changes
>   - perhaps clarify how much, if any, TC approval is required for a 
>     program to add a new project

My position on that is that programs decide which projects (i.e. which
code repositories) are necessary to the accomplishment of their mission.
The TC only gets involved if one of its members thinks the proposed code
repository is not a straightforward part of the program mission (and
thus represents a scope extension). Of course, the TC is automatically
involved WHEN the added project wants to be made part of the integrated
release (incubation request).

To take two examples:

I flagged the "kite" addition because I think it's an addition that is
not clearly in Keystone's program mission scope. That warrants, at the
very minimum, a discussion on -dev and at the TC to check if that
belongs to Identity and understand how it fits with the proposed
addition of Barbican.

I did not flag the "storyboard-webclient" addition because it's just an
additional project that the Infrastructure program wants to work on, and
it clearly belongs to the Infra program mission. Now if someone objects
to that, that someone can certainly flag it and require a discussion for
it. And if the TC was ever to force projects to use it, then we'd also
have a discussion (like: is it ready). But we are not there yet. Just
building a credible alternative for task tracking.

Regards,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)