On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 12/02/2013 10:19 AM, Jarret Raim wrote: >> All, >> >> Barbican is the OpenStack key management service and we’d like to >> request incubation for the Icehouse release. A Rackspace sponsored team >> has been working for about 9 months now, including following the Havana >> release cycle for our first release. >> >> Our incubation request is here: >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Barbican >> >> Our documentation is mostly hosted at GitHub for the moment, though we >> are in the process of converting much of it to DocBook. >> https://github.com/cloudkeep/barbican >> https://github.com/cloudkeep/barbican/wiki >> >> >> The Barbican team will be on IRC today at #openstack-barbican and you >> can contact us using the [email protected] mailing list if >> desired. > > The TC is currently working on formalizing requirements for new programs > and projects [3]. I figured I would give them a try against this > application. > > First, I'm assuming that the application is for a new program that > contains the new project. The application doesn't make that bit clear, > though. > >> Teams in OpenStack can be created as-needed and grow organically. As the team >> work matures, some technical efforts will be recognized as essential to the >> completion of the OpenStack project mission. By becoming an official Program, >> they place themselves under the authority of the OpenStack Technical >> Committee. In return, their contributors get to vote in the Technical >> Committee election, and they get some space and time to discuss future >> development at our Design Summits. When considering new programs, the TC will >> look into a number of criteria, including (but not limited to): > >> * Scope >> ** Team must have a specific scope, separated from others teams scope > > I would like to see a statement of scope for Barbican on the > application. It should specifically cover how the scope differs from > other programs, in particular the Identity program. > >> ** Team must have a mission statement > > This is missing. > >> * Maturity >> ** Team must already exist, have regular meetings and produce some work > > This seems covered. > >> ** Team should have a lead, elected by the team contributors > > Was the PTL elected? I can't seem to find record of that. If not, I > would like to see an election held for the PTL. > >> ** Team should have a clear way to grant ATC (voting) status to its >> significant contributors > > Related to the above > >> * Deliverables >> ** Team should have a number of clear deliverables > > barbican and python-barbicanclient, I presume. It would be nice to have > this clearly defined on the application. > > > Now, for the project specific requirements: > >> Projects wishing to be included in the integrated release of OpenStack must >> first apply for incubation status. During their incubation period, they will >> be able to access new resources and tap into other OpenStack programs (in >> particular the Documentation, QA, Infrastructure and Release management >> teams) >> to learn about the OpenStack processes and get assistance in their >> integration >> efforts. >> >> The TC will evaluate the project scope and its complementarity with existing >> integrated projects and other official programs, look into the project >> technical choices, and check a number of requirements, including (but not >> limited to): >> >> * Scope >> ** Project must have a clear and defined scope > > This is missing > >> ** Project should not inadvertently duplicate functionality present in other >> OpenStack projects. If they do, they should have a clear plan and >> timeframe >> to prevent long-term scope duplication. >> ** Project should leverage existing functionality in other OpenStack >> projects >> as much as possible > > I'm going to hold off on diving into this too far until the scope is > clarified.
I'm not. *snip* >> >> * Process >> ** Project must be hosted under stackforge (and therefore use git as its >> VCS) > > I see that barbican is now on stackforge, but python-barbicanclient is > still on github. Is that being moved soon? > >> ** Project must obey OpenStack coordinated project interface (such as tox, >> pbr, global-requirements...) > > Uses tox, but not pbr or global requirements It's also pretty easy for a stackforge project to opt-in to the global requirements sync job now too. >> ** Project should use oslo libraries or oslo-incubator where appropriate > > The list looks reasonable right now. Barbican should put migrating to > oslo.messaging on the Icehouse roadmap though. *snip* > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/barbican/tree/tools/pip-requires > > It looks like the only item here not in the global requirements is > Celery, which is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license. I'd like to address the use of Celery. WTF Barbican has been around for 9 months, which means that it does not predate the work that has become oslo.messaging. It doesn't even try. It uses a completely different thing. The use of celery needs to be replaced with oslo. Full stop. I do not believe it makes any sense to spend further time considering a project that's divergent on such a core piece. Which is a shame - because I think that Barbican is important and fills an important need and I want it to be in. BUT - We don't get to end-run around OpenStack project choices by making a new project on the side and then submitting it for incubation. It's going to be a pile of suck to fix this I'm sure, and I'm sure that it's going to delay getting actually important stuff done - but we deal with too much crazy as it is to pull in a non-oslo messaging and event substrata. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
