Open Stack

Joe Gordon wrote:
> [...]
> * In the changes to 7.1.b: "The Foundation shall distribute the software
> in the OpenStack TC 
> Approved Release under the Apache License 2.0 unless changed as provided
> in Section 9.1" So the OpenStack Project (superset of TC approved
> release that is also governed by the TC) can include not Apache 2 things?

Yes. That's actually already the case for some infra projects.

> [...]
> * Appendix 4 Section 3. To play devils advocate here, if the TC goes
> down the 'big tent small core' model where the TC is only really
> actively providing direct support for a small core while making space
> for many other projects in the OpenStack tent, does it make sense to
> have everyone in the big tent vote in TC elections even if the TC has no
> impact on their projects? For example if the TC is mostly focusing on
> nova/cinder/neutron/etc and is just providing a space for project foobar
> but does not interact with foobar developers or the foobar developers in
> any meaningful way should foobar developers vote in TC elections, even
> though the TC doesn't represent them? 

You're right: it is one of the identified issues with the
bigtent/smallcore structure proposal -- if we are elected by
contributors of the "bigtent" but focus on a "smallcore", there may be a
drift. Some people argued that the "smallcore" still needs to fill the
needs of the "bigtent", so that still makes sense.

That said, the TC election is governed by the TC Charter, so we have
some wiggle room there, as long as we use the "ATCs" in the election
somehow. We used to have PTL seats and directly-elected seats, we could
have weighted votes or seats purely elected by the smallcore
contributors in the future if that proves necessary.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)