Armando M. wrote: > [...] > So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after > some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so.
I also think it's time to revisit this experience now that it's been around for some time. On one hand the Neutron stadium allowed to increase the development bandwidth by tackling bottlenecks in reviews using smaller core review teams. On the other it's been difficult for Neutron leadership to follow up on all those initiatives and the results in terms of QA and alignment with "the OpenStack way" have been... mixed. And this touches on the governance issue. By adding all those projects under your own project team, you bypass the Technical Committee approval that they behave like OpenStack projects and are produced by the OpenStack community. The Neutron team basically vouches for all of them to be on par. As far as the Technical Committee goes, they are all being produced by the same team we originally blessed (the Neutron project team). That is perfectly fine with me, as long as the Neutron team feels confident they can oversee every single one of them and vouch for every single one of them. If the Neutron PTL feels the core Neutron leadership just can't keep up, I think we have a problem we need to address, before it taints the Neutron project team itself. One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the TC would judge those new project teams individually and might reject them if we feel the requirements are not met. We might want to clarify what happens then. Thanks for raising this thread! -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
