On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Joe Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Devananda van der Veen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > As promised at this week’s TC meeting, I have applied the various blog >> posts and mailing list threads related to changing our governance model to >> a series of patches against the openstack/governance repository [1]. >> > >> > I have tried to include all of the inputs, as well as my own opinions, >> and look at how each proposal needs to be reflected in our current policies >> so we do not drop commitments we want to retain along with the processes we >> are shedding [2]. >> > >> > I am sure we need more discussion, so I have staged the changes as a >> series rather than one big patch. Please consider the patches together when >> commenting. There are many related changes, and some incremental steps >> won’t make sense without the changes that come after (hey, just like code!). >> > >> > Doug >> > >> > [1] >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/governance+branch:master+topic:big-tent,n,z >> > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/big-tent-notes >> >> I've summed up a lot of my current thinking on this etherpad as well >> (I should really blog, but hey ...) >> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/in-pursuit-of-a-new-taxonomy >> >> > After seeing Jay's idea of making a yaml file modeling things and talking > to devananda about this I went ahead and tried to graph the relationships > out. > > repo: https://github.com/jogo/graphing-openstack > preliminary YAML file: > https://github.com/jogo/graphing-openstack/blob/master/openstack.yaml > sample graph: http://i.imgur.com/LwlkE73.png > > It turns out its really hard to figure out what the relationships are > without digging deep into the code for each project, so I am sure I got a > few things wrong (along with missing a lot of projects). > > > The relationships are very important for setting up an optimal gate > structure. I’m less convinced they are important for setting up the > governance structure, and I do not think we want a specific gate > configuration embedded in the governance structure at all. That’s why I’ve > tried to describe general relationships (“optional inter-project > dependences” vs. “strict co-dependent project groups” [1]) up until the > very last patch in the series [2], which redefines the integrated release > in terms of those other relationships and a base set of projects. > > I'm reading and reading and reading and my thoughts keep returning to, "we're optimizing only for dev." :) I need to either get over that or decide what parts need tweaking for docs and support optimization. I'll get going on reviews -- thanks a bunch for all this compilation and for the good blog writing. Much appreciated. Anne > Doug > > [1] > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125785/2/reference/project-testing-policies.rst > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125789/ > > > -Deva >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
