Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > >> Devananda van der Veen wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen >>>> <devananda....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One of the primary effects of integration, as far as the release >>>>> process is concerned, is being allowed to co-gate with other >>>>> integrated projects, and having those projects accept your changes >>>>> (integrate back with the other project). That shouldn't be a TC >>>> >>>> The point of integration is to add the projects to the integrated >>>> *release*, not just the gate, because the release is the thing we have >>>> said is OpenStack. Integration was about our overall project identity and >>>> governance. The testing was a requirement to be accepted, not a goal. >>> >>> We have plenty of things which are clearly part of OpenStack, and yet >>> which are not part of the Integrated Release. Oslo. Devstack. Zuul... >>> As far as I can tell, the only time when "integrated release" equals >>> "the thing we say is OpenStack" is when we're talking about the >>> trademark. >> >> The main goal of incubation, as we did it in the past cycles, is a >> learning period where the new project aligns enough with the existing >> ones so that it integrates with them (Horizon shows Sahara dashboard) >> and won't break them around release time (stability, co-gate, respect of >> release deadlines). >> >> If we have a strict set of projects in layer #1, I don't see the point >> of keeping incubation. We wouldn't add new projects to layer #1 (only >> project splits which do not really require incubations), and additions >> to the big tent are considered on social alignment only ("are you >> vaguely about cloud and do you follow the OpenStack way"). If there is >> nothing to graduate to, there is no need for incubation. >> >>>> Integration was about our overall project identity and governance. The >>>> testing was a requirement to be accepted, not a goal. >>> >>> Project identity and governance are presently addressed by the >>> creation of "Programs" and a fully-elected TC. Integration is not >>> addressing these things at all, as far as I can tell, though I agree >>> that it was initially intended to. >>> >>>> If there is no incubation process, and only a fixed list of projects will >>>> be in that new layer 1 group, then do contributors to the other projects >>>> have ATC status and vote for the TC? What is the basis for the TC >>>> accepting any responsibility for the project, and for the project agreeing >>>> to the TC’s leadership? >>> >>> I think a good basis for this is simply whether the developers of the >>> project are part of our community, doing things in the way that we do >>> things, and want this to happen. Voting and ATC status is already >>> decoupled  from the integrated gate and the integrated release -- >>> it's based on the accepted list of Programs , which actually has >>> nothing to do with incubation or integration . >> >> In Monty's proposal, ATC status would be linked to contributions to the >> big tent. Projects apply to become part of it, subject themselves to the >> oversight of the Technical Committee, and get the right to elect TC >> members in return. > > That’s the part that wasn’t clear. If we’re not “incubating” those projects, > then what criteria do we use to make decisions about the applications? Is a > declaration of intent enough?
In Monty's proposal, the big tent is pretty welcoming. The bar is "are you one of us": > Some examples of community that we care about: being on stackforge rather > than github; having a PTL who you elect rather than a BDFL; having meetings > on IRC. "Do any of the people who hack on the project also hack on any other > existing OpenStack projects, or are the people completely unconnected?" is a > potential social touchstone as well. > > All in all, meeting the requirements for "being one of us" is not > particularly hard, nor should it be. It's a community values assessment... I don't see what "incubating" would give us there, apart from preserving red tape. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev