On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > It seems like the implications of the "incoming" designation is the same as the "emerging" designation you suggested previously. :-) I like the idea of some sort of acknowledgement that there is a group working on a solution to a problem and that the solution hasn't reached sufficient maturity to be an incubated project. I prefer the name "emerging" over "incoming" but not strongly. The status of a fledgeling program in this state should be re-evaluated periodically, as we do with incubated projects, so I don't see a problem with creating such "working groups" (maybe that's a better name?) when there is sufficient interest and participation early on. I do like the idea of asking them to produce *something* -- a design doc, requirements list, some sort of detailed plan for doing whatever the program's mission would be -- before being granted this new official designation, to show that the people involved are prepared to spend time and effort, more than just saying "yes, I'm interested, too". > > 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. > +1 > > > 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... > Right, bringing them to the summits is a big goal, isn't it? Doug > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
