On 30/05/17 18:16, Chris Dent wrote: > > There's no TC meeting this week. Thierry did a second weekly status > report[^1]. There will be a TC meeting next week (Tuesday, 6th June > at 20:00 UTC) with the intention of discussing the proposals about > postgreSQL (of which more below). Here are my comments on pending TC > activity that either seems relevant or needs additional input. > > [^1]: > <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/117531.html> > > # Pending Stuff > > ## Queens Community Goals > > Proposals for community-wide goals[^2] for the Queens cycle have started > coming in. These are changes which, if approved, all projects are > expected to satisfy. In Pike the goals are: > > * [all control plane APIs deployable as WSGI > apps](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/pike/deploy-api-in-wsgi.html) > > * [supporting Python > 3.5](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/pike/python35.html) > > The full suite of goals for Queens has not yet been decided. > Identifying goals is a community-wide process. Your ideas are > wanted. > > ### Split Tempest Plugins into Separate Repos > > This goal for Queens is already approved. Any project which manages > its tempest tests as a plugin should move those tests into a > separate repo. The goal is at[^3]. The review for it[^4] has further > discussion on why it is a good idea. > > The original goal did not provide instructions on how to do it. > There is a proposal in progress[^5] to add a link to an etherpad[^6] > with instructions. > > Note that this goal only applies to tempest _plugins_. Projects > which have their tests in the core of tempest have nothing to do. I > wonder if it wouldn't be more fair for all projects to use plugins > for their tempest tests?
+ 1000. But apparently I am wrong on this. > > ### Two Proposals on Improving Version Discovery > > Monty has been writing API-WG guidelines about how to properly use > the service catalog and do version discovery[^7]. Building from that > he's proposed two new goals: > > * [Add Queens goal to add collection > links](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468436/) > * [Add Queens goal for full discovery > alignment](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468437/) > > The first is a small step in the direction of improving version > discovery, the second is all the steps to getting all projects > supporting proper version discovery, in case we are feeling extra > capable. > > Both of these need review from project contributors, first to see if there > is agreement on the strategies, second to see if they are > achievable. > > [^2]: <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html> > [^3]: > <https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/queens/split-tempest-plugins.html> > > [^4]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/369749/> > [^5]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468972/> > [^6]: <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-separate-plugin> > [^7]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462814/> > > ## etcd as a base service > > etcd has been proposed as a base service[^8]. A "base" service is > one that that can be expected to be present in any OpenStack > deployment. The hope is that by declaring this we can finally > bootstrap the distributed locking, group membership and service > liveness functionality that we've been talking about for years. If > you want this please say so on the review. You want this. > > If for some reason you _don't_ want this, then you'll want to > register your reasons as soon as possible. The review will merge > soon. > > [^8]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467436/> > > ## openstack-tc IRC channel > > With the decrease in the number of TC meetings on IRC there's a plan > to have [office hours](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467256/) > where some significant chunk of the TC will be available. Initially > this was going to be in the `#openstack-dev` channel but in the > hopes of making the logs readable after the fact, a [new channel is > proposed](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467386/). > > This is likely to pass soon, unless objections are raised. If you > have some, please raise them on the review. > > ## postgreSQL > > The discussions around postgreSQL have yet to resolve. See [last week's > report](https://anticdent.org/tc-report-21.html) for additional > information. Because things are blocked and there have been some > expressions of review fatigue there will be, as mentioned above, a > TC meeting next week on 6th June, 20:00 UTC. Show up if you have an > opinion if or how postgreSQL should or should not have a continuing > presence in OpenStack. Some links: > > * [original proposal documenting the lack of community attention to > postgreSQL](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427880/) > * [a shorter, less MySQL-oriented > version](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/465589/) > * [related email > > thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116642.html) > > * [active vs external approaches to RDBMS > > management](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/117148.html) > > > ## Draft Vision for the TC > > johnthetubaguy, dtroyer and I (cdent) continue to work on digesting > the feedback[^9] to the TC Vision document[^10]. We've made a bit of > progress but there's more work to do. If you have new feedback, > please add it to the review. > > [^9]: > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzHPP2EQh2DZWGTj_VbhwhtsDQebAgqldyi1MHm6QpE> > > [^10]: <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
