Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
A few cycles ago we set up the Release Cycle Management team which was a
bit of a frankenteam of the things I happened to be leading: release
management, stable branch maintenance and vulnerability management.
While you could argue that there was some overlap between those
functions (as in, "all these things need to be released") logic was not
the primary reason they were put together.
When the Security Team was created, the VMT was spinned out of the
Release Cycle Management team and joined there. Now I think we should
spin out stable branch maintenance as well:
* A good chunk of the stable team work used to be stable point release
management, but as of stable/liberty this is now done by the release
management team and triggered by the project-specific stable maintenance
teams, so there is no more overlap in tooling used there
* Following the kilo reform, the stable team is now focused on defining
and enforcing a common stable branch policy[1], rather than approving
every patch. Being more visible and having more dedicated members can
only help in that very specific mission
* The release team is now headed by Doug Hellmann, who is focused on
release management and does not have the history I had with stable
branch policy. So it might be the right moment to refocus release
management solely on release management and get the stable team its own
leadership
* Empowering that team to make its own decisions, giving it more
visibility and recognition will hopefully lead to more resources being
dedicated to it
* If the team expands, it could finally own stable branch health and
gate fixing. If that ends up all falling under the same roof, that team
could make decisions on support timeframes as well, since it will be the
primary resource to make that work
So.. good idea ? bad idea ? What do current stable-maint-core[2] members
think of that ? Who thinks they could step up to lead that team ?
[1] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/530,members
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Lots of great thoughts in the thread, trying to catch up with it.
I lean towards supporting the split; if anything, to make responsibilities
more clear. Currently, [especially since we disintegrated the monolithic
stable-maint team into per-project teams] I struggle to reach the whole
stable team and get some final decisions on unclear matters set. F.e. I
sent several [stable] emails to this ML recently that would require some
more input from outside neutron-stable-maint that I am part of, and I don’t
see enough responses, neither a way to understand where the discussion
leaned and what my next steps are.
I believe if we have a dedicated team for the effort, we would at least be
able to get more attention to such discussions, and hopefully would be able
to make final calls on policies common to the whole project.
I am not sure we actually *require* PTL for that to happen, though I also
don’t see it a bad thing if we do have the role. [And if you wonder, I
won’t be able to run for PTL for the project but I am happy to help the
cause.]
I think the main responsibility of the team would be enabling other,
per-project teams to do their job. Meaning, handling common policy
questions; providing tools where needed; spearheading and monitoring
initiatives that would make stable branches less broken; providing guidance
to project teams on how to manage stable branches properly, thru docs and
irc/email support; making calls on support phases and their length; etc.
Obviously it is not a full blown software project; separating concerns
seems justified here nevertheless.
Ihar
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
