Flavio Percoco wrote: > What I'm arguing here is: > > 1. Programs that are not part of OpenStack's release cycle shouldn't > be considered official nor they should have the rights that integrated > projects have. > > 2. I think requesting Programs to exist at the early stages of the > project is not necessary. I don't even think incubated projects should > have programs. I do agree the project's mission and goals have to be > clear but the program should be officially created *after* the project > graduates from incubation. > > The reasoning here is that anything could happen during incubation. > For example, a program created for project A - which is incubated - > may change to cover a broader mission that will allow a newborn > project B to fall under its umbrella, hence my previous proposal of > having a incubation stage for programs as well.
I think your concerns can be covered if we consider that programs covering incubated or "promising" projects should also somehow incubate. To avoid confusion I'd use a different term, let's say "incoming" programs for the sake of the discussion. Incoming programs would automatically graduate when one of their deliveries graduate to "integrated" status (for projects with such deliveries), or when the TC decides so (think: for "horizontal" programs like Documentation or Deployment). That doesn't change most of this proposal, which is that we'd encourage teams to ask to become an (incoming) program before they consider filing one of their projects for incubation. FWIW we already distinguish (on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Programs) programs that are born out of an incubated project from other programs, so adding this "incoming" status would not change much. > My proposal is to either not requesting any program to be created for > incubated projects / emerging technologies or to have a program called > 'Emerging Technologies' were all these projects could fit in. I don't think an "Emerging Technologies" program would make sense, since that would just be a weird assemblage of separate teams (how would that program elect a PTL ?). I prefer that they act as separate teams (which they are) and use the "incoming Program" concept described above. > The only > difference is that, IMHO, projects under this program should not have > all the rights that integrated projects and other programs have, > although the program will definitely fall under the TCs authority. For > example, projects under this program shouldn't be able to vote on the > TCs elections. So *that* would be a change from where we stand today, which is that incubated project contributors get ATC status and vote on TC elections. We can go either way, consider "incoming programs" to be "OpenStack programs" in the sense of the TC charter, or not. I'm not convinced there is so much value in restricting TC voting access (or ATC status) to "OpenStack programs". Incoming programs would all be placed under the authority of the TC so it's only fair that they have a vote. Also giving them ATC status gets them automatically invited to Design Summits, and getting "incoming" programs in Design Summits sounds like a good thing to do... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev