Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-07 Thread Mark McClain 

On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Russell Bryant 
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote:

On 02/06/2014 08:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Dina Belova wrote:
   Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
   review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
   specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.


Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not
all currently integrated projects fit all of them.
Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.

Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
so that we give this new review's process some mileage.

So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?


Sounds good to me.  How about we do them in the order you specified.

I'll go ahead and put together a wiki page that discusses the state of
Nova against the requirements to help the review along.  John and Mark,
do you think you could do the same for Cinder/Neutron at some point in
the next couple weeks?


Yep. I have some time to put together a wiki page for this.

mark

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-07 Thread Russell Bryant 
On 02/06/2014 08:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Dina Belova wrote:
>> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
>> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
>> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
>>
>>
>> Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not
>> all currently integrated projects fit all of them.
>> Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.
> 
> Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
> propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
> so that we give this new review's process some mileage.
> 
> So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?
> 

Sounds good to me.  How about we do them in the order you specified.

I'll go ahead and put together a wiki page that discusses the state of
Nova against the requirements to help the review along.  John and Mark,
do you think you could do the same for Cinder/Neutron at some point in
the next couple weeks?

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-07 Thread Russell Bryant 
On 02/06/2014 09:14 AM, Sergey Lukjanov wrote:
> Probably all PTLs could be asked to prepare initial report for
> requirements like it was done last time for graduating projects.

Yes, that sounds reasonable and would likely help the process along.

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-06 Thread Sergey Lukjanov 
Probably all PTLs could be asked to prepare initial report for requirements
like it was done last time for graduating projects.


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Dina Belova  wrote:

> I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
>> propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
>> so that we give this new review's process some mileage.
>
>
> +1, good idea
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Dina Belova wrote:
>> > Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
>> > review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should
>> set a
>> > specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not
>> > all currently integrated projects fit all of them.
>> > Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.
>>
>> Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
>> propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
>> so that we give this new review's process some mileage.
>>
>> So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dina Belova
>
> Software Engineer
>
> Mirantis Inc.
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Sincerely yours,
Sergey Lukjanov
Savanna Technical Lead
Mirantis Inc.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-06 Thread Dina Belova 
>
> I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
> propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
> so that we give this new review's process some mileage.


+1, good idea


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Dina Belova wrote:
> > Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
> > review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set
> a
> > specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
> >
> >
> > Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not
> > all currently integrated projects fit all of them.
> > Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.
>
> Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
> propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
> so that we give this new review's process some mileage.
>
> So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 

Best regards,

Dina Belova

Software Engineer

Mirantis Inc.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-06 Thread Thierry Carrez 
Dina Belova wrote:
> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
> 
> 
> Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not
> all currently integrated projects fit all of them.
> Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.

Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I
propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,
so that we give this new review's process some mileage.

So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Dina Belova 
>
> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.


Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not all
currently integrated projects fit all of them.
Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.

Dina


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Monty Taylor  wrote:

> On 02/05/2014 10:38 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>



 On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant >>> > wrote:

  Greetings,

  In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
  requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
  project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:

  http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/
 reference/incubation-integration-requirements

  Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated
 projects
  against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?

  Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
  review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should
 set a
  specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.

  Thoughts?


 I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the
 work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related
 issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the
 nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for
 *starting* the work.

>>>
>>> Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP.
>>>
>>> We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case
>>> by case basis, though.
>>>
>>
>> First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been
>> applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are
>> sane by applying them to existing projects.
>>
>> My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during
>> Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects
>> need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to
>> incubating status.
>>
>> I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure
>> out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects.
>> Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects
>> that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to
>> get them in sync.
>>
>>  From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on
>> the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our
>> tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease,
>> because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the
>> OpenStack whole is really large.
>>
>
> +100
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 

Best regards,

Dina Belova

Software Engineer

Mirantis Inc.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Monty Taylor 

On 02/05/2014 10:38 PM, Sean Dague wrote:

On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:

On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:




On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote:

 Greetings,

 In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
 requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
 project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:

 
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements

 Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects
 against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?

 Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
 review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
 specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.

 Thoughts?


I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the
work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related
issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the
nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for
*starting* the work.


Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP.

We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case
by case basis, though.


First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been
applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are
sane by applying them to existing projects.

My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during
Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects
need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to
incubating status.

I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure
out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects.
Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects
that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to
get them in sync.

 From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on
the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our
tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease,
because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the
OpenStack whole is really large.


+100


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Sean Dague 
On 02/06/2014 06:31 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant > > wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
>> requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
>> project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:
>>
>> 
>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements
>>
>> Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects
>> against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?
>>
>> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
>> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
>> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the
>> work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related
>> issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the
>> nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for
>> *starting* the work.
> 
> Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP.
> 
> We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case
> by case basis, though.

First, +1 on doing these kinds of reviews. I think as we've been
applying the rules to new projects, we need to validate that they are
sane by applying them to existing projects.

My feeling is that we've been evolving these new requirements during
Icehouse, and it's fair to say that all existing integrated projects
need to be up to snuff by Juno, otherwise we take a project back to
incubating status.

I think it will be really good to do some gap analysis here and figure
out where we think we have holes in our existing integrated projects.
Because realistically I think we're going to find a number of projects
that don't meet are current bar, and we'll need to come up with a way to
get them in sync.

From a gating perspective, I think a bunch of our issues are based on
the fact that as the number of moving parts in OpenStack expands, our
tolerance for any particular part not being up to par has to decrease,
because the number of ways a badly integrated component can impact the
OpenStack whole is really large.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
s...@dague.net / sean.da...@samsung.com
http://dague.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Russell Bryant 
On 02/05/2014 02:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant  > wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
> requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
> project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:
> 
> 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements
> 
> Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects
> against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?
> 
> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the
> work during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related
> issues at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the
> nature and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for
> *starting* the work.

Well, I think in all cases the work should start ASAP.

We could set the deadline for when we expect it to be finished on a case
by case basis, though.

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Doug Hellmann 
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Russell Bryant  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
> requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
> project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:
>
>
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements
>
> Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects
> against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?
>
> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
> review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
> specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I like the idea of starting this soon, so projects can prioritize the work
during the next cycle and have time to plan to discuss any related issues
at the summit. Setting a deadline for finishing may depend on the nature
and size of the gaps, but it seems fair to set a deadline for *starting*
the work.

Doug



>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [Governance] Integrated projects and new requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Russell Bryant 
Greetings,

In the TC we have been going through a process to better define our
requirements for incubation and graduation to being an integrated
project.  The current version can be found in the governance repo:

http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/incubation-integration-requirements

Is it time that we do an analysis of the existing integrated projects
against the requirements we have set?  If not now, when?

Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a
review of its current standing.  For any gaps, I think we should set a
specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.

Thoughts?

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev