Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Let me toss out my perspective (FWIW) from a cloud planning perspective as relates to single-vendor projects: As an established OpenStack and cloud SDN architect and by extension a working owner, I do design work for lots of the companies who read this list. Let me just say that from where I sit,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 04/08/16 23:00, joehuang wrote: I think all the problem is caused by the definition "official OpenStack project" for one big-tent project. I understand that each OpenStack vendor wants some differentiation in their solution, while also would like to collaborate with common core projects.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

: Erno Kuvaja [ekuv...@redhat.com] Sent: 05 August 2016 1:15 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 August 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/04/2016 01:52 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote: Ironic does have radosgw support, and it's documented here: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/radosgw.html -- clearly it's not "first class" as we don't validate it in CI like we do with swift, but the code exists and I believe we have

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On Aug 4, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote: The problem is, OpenStack is a very fractured landscape. It takes signific

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:27 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On 08/04/2016 03:02 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: Nope. The incompatibility was for things that never were in radosgw, not thing

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

artzlander.org] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:27 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On 08/04/2016 03:02 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Nope. The incompatibility was for things that never were in

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

nstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects Thomas Goirand wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that pro

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

...@swartzlander.org] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:21 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On 08/04/2016 11:57 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Ok. I'll play devils advocate here and speak to the other s

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects > Sorry, I was a bit unclear here. I meant the radosgw in particular. I've seen > multiple > OpenStack projects fail to integrate with it. > > The most recent example I can th

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects Kevin, What do you mean by "Other OpenStack projects don't take it into account because its not a big tent thing"? I think there is pretty decent adoption of Ceph across the projects where it would make sense. Also I doubt none of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

rg Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects Thomas Goirand wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project being "in&qu

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects > > Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto wrote: >> >> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from >> our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Devdatta Kulkarni wrote: > > As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single > > -vendor tag, I have following thoughts/questions on this issue. > > In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the > table

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

jects > exit the big tent after some time. As the testing situation may be made worse. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and >&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and >> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project >> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 07/31/2016 05:59 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > This sounds good to me. > > What about making it iterative but with a delayed start. Something like: > > There is a grace period of 1 year for projects that newly join the big tent. > After which, the following criteria will be evaluated to keep a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto wrote: > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from > our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the > principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and > nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project > being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack > ecosystem of projects is limited.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Devdatta Kulkarni wrote: > As current PTL of one of the projects that has the team:single-vendor tag, > I have following thoughts/questions on this issue. In preamble I'd like to reiterate that the proposal is not on the table at this stage -- this is just a discussion to see whether it would be

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/08/16 21:15, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 02/08/16 15:13 +, Hayes, Graham wrote: >> On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: >>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

g List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects To Steven's specific question: > If PTLs can weigh in on this thread and commit to participation in such a > cross-project subgroup, I'd be happy to lead it. I would like to participate and help g

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Dake (stdake) [mailto:std...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 11:45 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects > > Responses inl

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 02/08/16 15:13 +, Hayes, Graham wrote: On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Thierry, Ben, Doug, How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but others are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

> On 02 Aug 2016, at 17:13, Hayes, Graham wrote: > > On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: >> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >>> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Thierry, Ben, Doug, How can we distinguish between. "Project is

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 02/08/2016 16:48, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > Responses inline: > > On 8/2/16, 8:13 AM, "Hayes, Graham" wrote: > >> On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: >>> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Responses inline: On 8/2/16, 8:13 AM, "Hayes, Graham" wrote: >On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: >> On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >>> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Thierry, Ben, Doug, How can we distinguish between.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 02/08/2016 15:42, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >>> Thierry, Ben, Doug, >>> >>> How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but >>> others are not joining" vs "Project is actively

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 8/2/16, 7:17 AM, "Ed Leafe" wrote: >On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > >> For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things >>to >> dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They >>aren't >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 02/08/16 09:17 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things to dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They aren't just trying, but are trying

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 01/08/16 10:28 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sean, So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag: https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html And trigger exit when the tag is present for

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 01/08/16 10:19 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Thierry, Ben, Doug, How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people out"? I think at some level, it's not

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > For example tripleo is single-vendor, but is doing all the right things to > dig out of single vendor by doing actual community building. They aren't > just trying, but are trying *very* hard with their activities.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 8/1/16, 8:38 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: >Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +: >> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from >>our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under >>the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-08-02 11:16:29 +0100: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just > > like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little > > diversity is that they "just

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/02/2016 06:16 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote: > >> Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just >> like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little >> diversity is that they "just work". Usually people get

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote: Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would just like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very little diversity is that they "just work". Usually people get involved when something doesn't work or they need

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 13:43 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > Making no judgments about the particular exemplars here, I would > > just like to point out that one reason why projects exist with very > > little diversity is that they "just work".

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Adrian Otto wrote: > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our > big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the > principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/01/2016 12:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +: >>> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects >>> from our big tent at all, as long as they are

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 11:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +: > > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects > > from our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively > > developed under the principles of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Excerpts from Michael Krotscheck's message of 2016-08-01 16:06:45 +: > FYI- I'm totally in favor of eviction. But... > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > > I'm interested in hearing other reasons that we should keep these > > sorts of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

FYI- I'm totally in favor of eviction. But... On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM Doug Hellmann wrote: > > I'm interested in hearing other reasons that we should keep these > sorts of projects, though. I'm not yet ready to propose the change > to the policy myself. ...if the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Excerpts from Adrian Otto's message of 2016-08-01 15:14:48 +: > I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our > big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the > principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-08-01 10:31:44 -0400: > On 08/01/2016 10:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Sean, > > > > So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that > > already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such projects sends an alarming signal to our ecosystem. The reason we made

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/01/2016 10:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Sean, > > So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that > already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag: > > https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html > > And trigger exit when the tag is

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Sean, So we will programatically test the metrics (if we are not doing that already) to apply/remove "team:single-vendor" tag: https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/team_single-vendor.html And trigger exit when the tag is present for more than 3 cycles in a row (say as of release

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/01/2016 09:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Thierry, Ben, Doug, > > How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but > others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people > out"? I think at some level, it's not really that different. If we treat them

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Thierry, Ben, Doug, How can we distinguish between. "Project is doing the right thing, but others are not joining" vs "Project is actively trying to keep people out"? Thanks, Dims On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/01/2016 03:39 AM, Thierry

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/01/2016 03:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: [...] To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

ntation simple with a single deadline, even if that means we give some teams what appears to be a more generous amount of time than they need. Doug > > Thanks, > Kevin > > From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 07/31/2016 02:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-31 18:17:28 +: >> Kevin, >> >> Just assessing your numbers, the team:diverse-affiliation tag covers what >> is required to maintain that tag. It covers more then core reviewers - >> also

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >> On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: >>> [...] >>> To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be >>> given enough time to lose that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > On 7/31/16, 11:29 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote: >> [...] >> To be clear, I'm suggesting that projects with team:single-vendor be >> given enough time to lose that tag. That does not require them to grow >> diverse enough to get

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

. (another notification and 6 months if still out of >> >compliance) >> > >> >This should allow projects that are, or become under diverse a path >> >towards working on project membership diversity. It gives projects that >> >are very far out of wack a whil

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

>Thoughts? The numbers should be fairly easy to change to make for > >different amounts of grace period. > > > >Thanks, > >Kevin > > > >From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com] > >Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:16 A

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

- gets 6 months > >Thoughts? The numbers should be fairly easy to change to make for >different amounts of grace period. > >Thanks, >Kevin >____ >From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com] >Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:16 AM >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

From: Doug Hellmann [d...@doughellmann.com] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:16 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects Starting a new thread from "Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mir

[openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

Starting a new thread from "Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off" Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-07-31 11:37:44 +0200: > Doug Hellmann wrote: > > There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered >