Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thierry Carrez]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400:
>>>  > To me, this statement
 about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
 working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
 improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
 improving our own experience of making it.
>>>
>>> +1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
>>> OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.
>>>
>>> The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)
>>
>> Tomato, tomato.
>>
>> We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
>> different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
>> Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
>> is "a" -- as in singular.
> 
> FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
> outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
> presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
> in my opinion, not desirable at this stage. I think that saying "a
> framework" would be more accurate today. Something like "OpenStack is
> one community with one common mission, producing one framework of
> collaborating components" would capture my thinking.

I just pushed a new revision that incorporates many suggested wording
changes, including this one.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Amrith Kumar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:45 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit:
> Write down OpenStack principles
> 
> Clay Gerrard wrote:
> > This is why I always have and presumably always will support Thierry on
> > the TC.  His initial thinking *frequently* seems out of alignment with
> > me, but after observing others healthy debate and discussion [1] - I
> > always find we tend we both come around a little and seem to be pointing
> > in basically the same direction in the end.  Thierry is *reasonable*.
> > Throwing out old assumptions when new information is raised is an
> > absolute imperative - and here we see Thierry plainly and openly
> > offering concession to a reasonable counterpoint.
> 
> Thanks, Clay!
> 
> I'll add that while it may appear that Clay and I always disagree, I
> think he is profoundly honest in his feedback and I value it very much.
> 
> In particular, I agree with his recent blogpost: we need to listen to
> our users (operators, but also application developers), and focus on our
> mission more than on governance details. It is important for open source
> projects to have a strong governance model, but it is only the frame
> that holds the canvas and defines the space. The important part is the
> painting.
> 

[amrith] Clay, Thierry, well said. A few of us have opinions (just a few), an 
even smaller number have strong opinions :) It is therefore understandable that 
we will sometimes disagree. But it was refreshing to see the dialogue on topics 
with such stark disagreement conducted without becoming disagreeable.

> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thierry Carrez]

Clay Gerrard wrote:
> This is why I always have and presumably always will support Thierry on
> the TC.  His initial thinking *frequently* seems out of alignment with
> me, but after observing others healthy debate and discussion [1] - I
> always find we tend we both come around a little and seem to be pointing
> in basically the same direction in the end.  Thierry is *reasonable*. 
> Throwing out old assumptions when new information is raised is an
> absolute imperative - and here we see Thierry plainly and openly
> offering concession to a reasonable counterpoint.

Thanks, Clay!

I'll add that while it may appear that Clay and I always disagree, I
think he is profoundly honest in his feedback and I value it very much.

In particular, I agree with his recent blogpost: we need to listen to
our users (operators, but also application developers), and focus on our
mission more than on governance details. It is important for open source
projects to have a strong governance model, but it is only the frame
that holds the canvas and defines the space. The important part is the
painting.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Doug Hellmann]

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> 
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-09-12 08:53:58 +0200:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400:
> To me, this statement
> about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
> working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
> improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
> improving our own experience of making it.
 
 +1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
 OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.
 
 The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)
>>> 
>>> Tomato, tomato.
>>> 
>>> We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
>>> different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
>>> Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
>>> is "a" -- as in singular.
>> 
>> FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
>> outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
>> presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
>> in my opinion, not desirable at this stage. I think that saying "a
>> framework" would be more accurate today. Something like "OpenStack is
>> one community with one common mission, producing one framework of
>> collaborating components" would capture my thinking.
>> 
> 
> From the perspective of what we are delivering, I can go along with
> either "toolkit" or "framework." Do those terms capture the spirit
> of the original meaning, though, when considered from a governance
> perspective? Aren't we trying to say that we're a single community,
> too?

And of course re-reading I see you said “community” right there at the start.
I should probably not be doing code reviews today, either. ;-)

Doug


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-09-12 08:53:58 +0200:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400:
> >>  > To me, this statement
> >>> about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
> >>> working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
> >>> improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
> >>> improving our own experience of making it.
> >>
> >> +1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
> >> OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.
> >>
> >> The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)
> > 
> > Tomato, tomato.
> > 
> > We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
> > different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
> > Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
> > is "a" -- as in singular.
> 
> FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
> outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
> presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
> in my opinion, not desirable at this stage. I think that saying "a
> framework" would be more accurate today. Something like "OpenStack is
> one community with one common mission, producing one framework of
> collaborating components" would capture my thinking.
> 

>From the perspective of what we are delivering, I can go along with
either "toolkit" or "framework." Do those terms capture the spirit
of the original meaning, though, when considered from a governance
perspective? Aren't we trying to say that we're a single community,
too?

Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Ed Leafe]

On Sep 12, 2016, at 1:53 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

> FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
> outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
> presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
> in my opinion, not desirable at this stage.

Though the two terms looks and sound somewhat similar, “project” and “product” 
could not be more dissimilar.

https://www.linux.com/blog/why-your-open-source-project-not-product


-- Ed Leafe






__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Clay Gerrard]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:
>
> FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
> outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
> presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
> in my opinion, not desirable at this stage. I think that saying "a
> framework" would be more accurate today. Something like "OpenStack is
> one community with one common mission, producing one framework of
> collaborating components" would capture my thinking.
>


This is why I always have and presumably always will support Thierry on the
TC.  His initial thinking *frequently* seems out of alignment with me, but
after observing others healthy debate and discussion [1] - I always find we
tend we both come around a little and seem to be pointing in basically the
same direction in the end.  Thierry is *reasonable*.  Throwing out old
assumptions when new information is raised is an absolute imperative - and
here we see Thierry plainly and openly offering concession to a reasonable
counterpoint.

It's unfortunate just how often we have to see Thierry do this on behalf of
some other members on the TC!  In fact, sometimes I'm scared to imagine
just how much worse off OpenStack governance might be if it wasn't for the
small handful of reasonable individuals willing to subject themselves to
the pain of the political grind.

PTL announcements are coming out and TC announcements are coming up soon!

http://governance.openstack.org/

Let's make sure we get some more *reasonable* people in there to help out
Thierry!  Thank you Thierry for your service!

-Clay

1. Like many other OpenStack contributors - I try not to personally get
involved in these non-technical debates.  It's a huge distraction from the
mission; and for me personally I recognize I'm too passionate and
ineloquent to make any meaningful direct contribution anyway.  But I care
about the OpenStack mission; and I feel compelled as of late to do my part
to ensure reasonable people are focusing on the right things in OpenStack
governance.  OpenStack for Operators!
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thierry Carrez]

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400:
>>  > To me, this statement
>>> about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
>>> working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
>>> improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
>>> improving our own experience of making it.
>>
>> +1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
>> OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.
>>
>> The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)
> 
> Tomato, tomato.
> 
> We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
> different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
> Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
> is "a" -- as in singular.

FWIW I agree with Jay that the wording "a product" is definitely
outdated and does not represent the current reality. "Product"
presupposes a level of integration that we never achieved, and which is,
in my opinion, not desirable at this stage. I think that saying "a
framework" would be more accurate today. Something like "OpenStack is
one community with one common mission, producing one framework of
collaborating components" would capture my thinking.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Amrith Kumar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Leafe [mailto:e...@leafe.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:02 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit:
> Write down OpenStack principles
> 
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Chris Dent <cdent...@anticdent.org> wrote:
> 
> > The writing is starting from a detailed proposal which, as txx said in
> > his response to me above, presents itself as a document that is "meant
> > to document *existing* principles that we operate under but never
> > documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really
> > changing anything".
> >
> > That is, it thinks of iself as an existing truth to be ratified.
> 
> I think that you've made an excellent case for exactly the sort of process
> that is being followed. Let me explain.
> 
> As Monty explained, the document is the result of the TC realizing that
> there were many things that were part of their shared understanding, but
> which were not necessarily things that a newcomer to OpenStack would
> realize. The document they are creating is simply a way to capture that
> tribal knowledge so that it is discoverable by everyone.
> 
> While I'm not a member of the TC, I have been closely following it for a
> few years now, and attend nearly every meeting. So I had some additional
> context that you might not have, and thus had a very different reaction to
> the document. The more that these things are recorded and available to
> all, the better it will be for the community, which is something that I
> know you violently agree with. :) This is just the first step in the
> documentation process of where we are today, so that everyone has a common
> starting point for discussing where we would like to be in the future.
> 

[amrith] Ed, you make a great point. If you don't know where you are going, any 
road will get you there [Lewis Carrol] but equally, if you don't know where you 
are starting from, how do you know which way to go?


> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 
> 
> 
> 


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Amrith Kumar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Dent [mailto:cdent...@anticdent.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 7:19 AM
> To: OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write
> down OpenStack principles
> 
> 
> There's a governance proposal in progress at
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
> visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
> OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.
> 
> I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
> project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
> been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
> assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
> what we get up to.
> 
> At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
> interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
> preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
> engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
> I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.
> 
> The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
> what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
> agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
> that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
> obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
> the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].

[amrith] Chris, I do not have the longer history that you have with OpenStack 
and therefore my comments below reflect this shorter tenure with the project.

I believe that there are two things that have motivated the writing of these 
documents at this stage. The first is a realization that the project has 
evolved organically and there are many things that are explicitly documented 
(rules for election of the TC, PTL's, ...) but there are equally well some 
other important things that are not documented.

Sitting in a room with a bunch of people in Ann Arbor, listening to the 
conversations at TC meetings on IRC, I got the impression that there were many 
fundamental things that people in the community did not have a common shared 
understanding about. I'm not implying that they were polar opposites, in many 
cases they were merely shades of gray, a few degrees apart. But yes, there were 
some where the impressions were certainly more divergent than others.

One of the core concepts that came out of the session(s) we had at Ann Arbor, 
and central to the theme of the leadership style that we were exposed to by the 
Zingerman's folks was the notion that an organization works effectively only 
when all people in the organization share a common set of values, principles, 
and goals.

It was in this context that after two days of hearing about this, that there 
was a collective belief that it would be good to get that shared common set of 
values, principles and goals for OpenStack. Now, that's a huge task and one 
small aspect of that was to write down some of the things that we felt were the 
OpenStack principles.

And I think that the writing down of these things has spurred a very important 
debate that has surfaced the fact that there are many different points of view 
expressed in the review, and in various email threads, about what these 
'principles' really are.

Are we one OpenStack or not, is a good example.

I agree with you, it is important for all of us to visit these reviews as you 
suggest in your email.

Let me just make one other point, you write:

> I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

Within reason, I don't think this is bad. The devil is, literally, in the 
details.

> 
> I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
> much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
> do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
> the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
> talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
> going well.
> 
> [1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
> about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
> authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
> discussion in the present day.
> 
> --
> Chris Dent   ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)https://anticdent.org/
> freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thiago da Silva]

On 09/09/2016 04:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:


Tomato, tomato.

We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
is "a" -- as in singular.
Doug, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. To use a simple 
example, I could buy *a* remote control car that is very well defined by 
the manufacturer or *a* kit that allows me to build a remote control car 
the way I want, which would probably look very different.


But I *think* what you are getting at, and I agree that we (as a 
community) need to discuss and have a better understanding, is that this 
discussion is really about the autonomy of the projects that make 
openstack. If it's one product, then projects have very little autonomy, 
but if they are a federation, they problably have more autonomy. Reading 
over the IRC chat from 2011 that ttx posted in a earlier email, it 
seemed that the vote was also about that very issue.


Thiago


Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 14:30:29 -0400:
> On 09/09/2016 02:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400:
> >> My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on
> >> the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of
> >> well-scoped and limited services in the vein of the UNIX model of do one
> >> thing and do it well. I believe that vendors and cloud providers should
> >> be able to choose services and tools from this OpenStack cloud toolkit
> >> to build clouds, cloud products, and products that utilize OpenStack
> >> service APIs to please customers.
> >>
> >> It makes sense for many of those cloud toolkit services and components
> >> to integrate well with each other via public, stable interfaces and
> >> there's nothing about OpenStack being a collection of cloud tools that
> >> prevents or discourages that integration.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> -jay
> >
> > I don't see a conflict with saying that what we're producing is a
> > set of things that can be composed in different ways depending on
> > need, but that the way we produce them is through a unified community
> > with common practices, tools, and patterns.
> 
> Absolutely agree with you above. But note that you say "what we're 
> producing is a set of things". You do not say "what we're producing is 
> *one* thing", which is what "a single product composed of cooperating 
> components" implies and which I don't think is realistic or correct.
> 
>  > To me, this statement
> > about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
> > working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
> > improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
> > improving our own experience of making it.
> 
> +1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
> OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.
> 
> The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)

Tomato, tomato.

We're all, I think, looking at this "One OpenStack" principle from
different perspectives.  You say "a toolkit". I say "a project".
Thierry said "a product". The important word in all of those phrases
is "a" -- as in singular.

Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-09-09 19:58:23 + (+), John Davidge wrote:
[...]
> I don't think the problem was the path, but the goal. The
> expectation was that Stackforge projects would eventually graduate
> into OpenStack projects, but with the definition/requirements of
> OpenStack at the time that didn't always make sense.
[...]

For what it's worth, I think you're mistaken about this as well. It
was never intended that projects which were hosted in our toolchain
infrastructure needed to become an official part of OpenStack. It
eased that transition for those who did want to have their
projects/programs/teams (pick your favorite term from some point in
our history) join OpenStack but it was never required of them.

> * Create a new place for complimentary projects to live
> * Bring back Stackforge

StackForge never went away. We simply renamed it to "unofficial
repositories" dropping the (formerly confusing and, in the opinions
of many, unnecessary) branding reference to another popular
"S*Forge" service. It still works just like it did. If you have
software you want to maintain in our infrastructure and it's in some
way related to OpenStack or generally useful to our community, then
feel free to put it there. If you want that software to be an
official part of OpenStack, talk to the TC.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Clark Boylan]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016, at 12:58 PM, John Davidge wrote:
> Yes, that's a part of what I'm saying. After writing my first reply I
> decided there wasn't much point talking about the problem without
> proposing a solution, so I wrote one[2]. Essentially it boils down to:
> 
> * Abolish The Big Tent
> * Define OpenStack as its core components
> * Create a new place for complimentary projects to live
> * Bring back Stackforge
> 
> The link[2] below goes into a lot more detail, and I'd love to hear
> feedback from all interested parties.
> 
> >My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on
> >the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of
> >well-scoped and limited services in the vein of the UNIX model of do one
> >thing and do it well. I believe that vendors and cloud providers should
> >be able to choose services and tools from this OpenStack cloud toolkit
> >to build clouds, cloud products, and products that utilize OpenStack
> >service APIs to please customers.
> 
> So it seems we both agree that the current definition doesn't fit, even
> if
> we don’t agree on the solution :)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260
> [2]
> https://johndavidge.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/mr-openstack-tear-down-this-te
> nt/

FWIW stackforge didn't go away. We just stopped using a separate Gerrit
prefix for those projects. You do not have to be part of the big tent to
be hosted on review.openstack.org. See
http://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/stackforge.html

Clark

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[John Davidge]

Jay Pipes wrote:

>[…]
>The TC doesn't comply with anything at all. It's the body that is
>elected to make overarching governance decisions for the OpenStack
>community.

Sure, that's an important distinction. My point is that when governance
decisions are made that seem to contradict each other, it can be difficult
to follow.

>> This is the
>> moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
>> independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
>> independent projects that work together for some level of integration
>>and
>> releases.²
>
>You are mistaken, I'm sorry to say.

That's entirely possible. The review we're all debating highlights that
the intentions and realities of OpenStack are not easy to agree upon.

>Firstly, your statement that OpenStack stopped being "a single product"
>at some point is just flat-out wrong. It never *was* a single product,
>regardless of whether some time in 2011 seven individuals on the project
>policy board said that that was the direction they preferred the
>community to go in.

As Thierry pointed out, 'A single product made of a lot of independent,
but cooperating, components' is the closest thing we currently have to a
common philosophy. The review[1] in question is attempting to codify this
into our governance policies. The opinion of the TC seems to be that this
is what were currently are. I disagree with that assessment - it sounds
like you do as well. I take your point about OpenStack never being a
single product to begin with. The distinction I would make is that The Big
Tent was the first time a governance decision was made to undermine that
goal.

>Secondly, the Big Tent was about changing the process by which new
>projects applying to become "OpenStack projects" were evaluated by the
>TC. We went from a situation of evaluating new projects using
>subjective, often contradicting and changing opinions on architectural
>and software design to instead evaluating new project teams on whether
>the project team followed "The OpenStack Way" (followed the 4 Opens and
>furthered the mission of OpenStack)
>
>The Big Tent **was not a redefinition of what OpenStack was or is**.

In theory, perhaps. In practice, I'd say that it was. Prior to The Big
Tent there was a clear distinction between which projects were OpenStack,
and which projects were OpenStack-in-waiting (Stackforge). A problem that
The Big Tent seemed to be solving was that there wasn't always a clear
path for a given Stackforge project to become an OpenStack project. I
don't think the problem was the path, but the goal. The expectation was
that Stackforge projects would eventually graduate into OpenStack
projects, but with the definition/requirements of OpenStack at the time
that didn't always make sense. So we changed what it meant to be an
OpenStack project. Perhaps what we should have done is define a new place
for such projects to land.

>Sounds to me like you are just complaining about OpenStack having too
>many projects in it. If so, please tell us which projects you would have
>leave OpenStack.

Yes, that's a part of what I'm saying. After writing my first reply I
decided there wasn't much point talking about the problem without
proposing a solution, so I wrote one[2]. Essentially it boils down to:

* Abolish The Big Tent
* Define OpenStack as its core components
* Create a new place for complimentary projects to live
* Bring back Stackforge

The link[2] below goes into a lot more detail, and I'd love to hear
feedback from all interested parties.

>My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on
>the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of
>well-scoped and limited services in the vein of the UNIX model of do one
>thing and do it well. I believe that vendors and cloud providers should
>be able to choose services and tools from this OpenStack cloud toolkit
>to build clouds, cloud products, and products that utilize OpenStack
>service APIs to please customers.

So it seems we both agree that the current definition doesn't fit, even if
we don’t agree on the solution :)

Thanks,

John

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260
[2]
https://johndavidge.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/mr-openstack-tear-down-this-te
nt/



Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England & Wales (company 
registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, 
Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be 
viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - This e-mail message may 
contain confidential or privileged information intended for the recipient. Any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. 
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com and delete the original message. Your cooperation 
is appreciated.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-09-09 14:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Flavio Percoco wrote:
[...]
> As one of the folks that have always brought up "assuming good
> faith" whenever possible, I admit that I mistakenly (?) assumed
> that it was shared practice
[...]

You're certainly not alone. I for one don't wish to welcome
contributions into the community from entities who are self-serving
and willing to undermine the project and the community for their own
benefit. I'd rather be able to assume those within our community are
acting in good faith to better us all, and not hesitate to evict any
people or organizations who cannot help but succumb to greed and a
lack of empathy for positive work being done by the rest of us.

Taking a stance that we can't trust contributions from some parts of
our community reinforces an idea that we're still willing to accept
them.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Jay Pipes]

On 09/09/2016 02:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400:

My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on
the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of
well-scoped and limited services in the vein of the UNIX model of do one
thing and do it well. I believe that vendors and cloud providers should
be able to choose services and tools from this OpenStack cloud toolkit
to build clouds, cloud products, and products that utilize OpenStack
service APIs to please customers.

It makes sense for many of those cloud toolkit services and components
to integrate well with each other via public, stable interfaces and
there's nothing about OpenStack being a collection of cloud tools that
prevents or discourages that integration.

Best,
-jay


I don't see a conflict with saying that what we're producing is a
set of things that can be composed in different ways depending on
need, but that the way we produce them is through a unified community
with common practices, tools, and patterns.


Absolutely agree with you above. But note that you say "what we're 
producing is a set of things". You do not say "what we're producing is 
*one* thing", which is what "a single product composed of cooperating 
components" implies and which I don't think is realistic or correct.


> To me, this statement

about One OpenStack is about emphasizing those commonalities and
working together to increase them, with the combined goals of
improving the user and operator experience of using OpenStack and
improving our own experience of making it.


+1000 to the above, and I don't believe anything about my stance that 
OpenStack should be a cloud toolkit goes against that.


The wording/philosophy that I disagree with is the "one product" thing :)

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-09-09 13:03:42 -0400:
> On 09/09/2016 06:22 AM, John Davidge wrote:
> > Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
> >> contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
> >> seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
> >> decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
> >> projects, or one thing".
> >>
> >> A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
> >> pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
> >> settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
> >> here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
> >> that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
> >> OpenStack.
> >>
> >> Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
> >> principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
> >> But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
> >> were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
> >> properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
> >> to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
> >> change.
> >
> > To provide a counter point, I think the reason this question is asked so
> > often is not because the TC has failed to *document* this policy, but that
> > it has failed to *comply* with it.
> 
> The TC doesn't comply with anything at all. It's the body that is 
> elected to make overarching governance decisions for the OpenStack 
> community.
> 
> > I¹m of course referring to the introduction of The Big Tent.
> 
> And I'm of course going to correct your misstatements below about what 
> the Big Tent (formally called the Project Structure Reform) was about.
> 
>  > This is the
> > moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
> > independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
> > independent projects that work together for some level of integration and
> > releases.²
> 
> You are mistaken, I'm sorry to say.
> 
> Firstly, your statement that OpenStack stopped being "a single product" 
> at some point is just flat-out wrong. It never *was* a single product, 
> regardless of whether some time in 2011 seven individuals on the project 
> policy board said that that was the direction they preferred the 
> community to go in.
> 
> OpenStack was never a single product made of a lot of independent but 
> cooperating components. From the very beginning of OpenStack-time, Swift 
> and Nova were never designed or planned as a single product. To this 
> *day*, Swift is its own product with very few pieces of integration with 
> some other OpenStack projects where relevant (Keystone) but there was 
> never any push or reason to have Swift become simply a "part of a single 
> OpenStack product".
> 
> Secondly, the Big Tent was about changing the process by which new 
> projects applying to become "OpenStack projects" were evaluated by the 
> TC. We went from a situation of evaluating new projects using 
> subjective, often contradicting and changing opinions on architectural 
> and software design to instead evaluating new project teams on whether 
> the project team followed "The OpenStack Way" (followed the 4 Opens and 
> furthered the mission of OpenStack)
> 
> The Big Tent **was not a redefinition of what OpenStack was or is**.
> 
> > This is in direct contradiction to the stated and collectively understood
> > goal of the project, and has left many scratching their heads.
> 
> I don't know what you are referring to above as "the stated and 
> collectively understood goal of the project". Are you referring to the 
> OpenStack Mission Statement? If so, see point above. The Big Tent didn't 
> change the Mission nor did it redefine what OpenStack was.
> 
> > The principles as written in the review do not accurately describe the
> > current state of the project. To make it so that they do, we either need
> > to change the principles or change the project. As I see it, our options
> > are:
> >
> > 1. Adjust the project to reflect the principles by abolishing The Big Tent.
> > 2. Adjust the principles to reflect the project by redefining it as: ³A
> > collection of independent projects that work together for some level of
> > integration and releases.²
> >
> > Personally, my vote is for option 1.
> 
> Sounds to me like you are just complaining about OpenStack having too 
> many projects in it. If so, please tell us which projects you would have 
> leave OpenStack.
> 
> No more deployment projects? Cut Triple-O, Fuel, Puppet, Chef, Ansible, 
> Saltstack, devstack.
> 
> No more competing implementations of things? Cut Ceilometer or Monasca. 
> Your choice.
> 
> No more Telco-specific stuff? Cut Tacker, networking-sfc, and a whole 
> host of other stuff.
> 
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Jay Pipes]

On 09/09/2016 06:22 AM, John Davidge wrote:

Thierry Carrez wrote:


[...]
In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
projects, or one thing".

A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
OpenStack.

Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
change.


To provide a counter point, I think the reason this question is asked so
often is not because the TC has failed to *document* this policy, but that
it has failed to *comply* with it.


The TC doesn't comply with anything at all. It's the body that is 
elected to make overarching governance decisions for the OpenStack 
community.



I¹m of course referring to the introduction of The Big Tent.


And I'm of course going to correct your misstatements below about what 
the Big Tent (formally called the Project Structure Reform) was about.


> This is the

moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
independent projects that work together for some level of integration and
releases.²


You are mistaken, I'm sorry to say.

Firstly, your statement that OpenStack stopped being "a single product" 
at some point is just flat-out wrong. It never *was* a single product, 
regardless of whether some time in 2011 seven individuals on the project 
policy board said that that was the direction they preferred the 
community to go in.


OpenStack was never a single product made of a lot of independent but 
cooperating components. From the very beginning of OpenStack-time, Swift 
and Nova were never designed or planned as a single product. To this 
*day*, Swift is its own product with very few pieces of integration with 
some other OpenStack projects where relevant (Keystone) but there was 
never any push or reason to have Swift become simply a "part of a single 
OpenStack product".


Secondly, the Big Tent was about changing the process by which new 
projects applying to become "OpenStack projects" were evaluated by the 
TC. We went from a situation of evaluating new projects using 
subjective, often contradicting and changing opinions on architectural 
and software design to instead evaluating new project teams on whether 
the project team followed "The OpenStack Way" (followed the 4 Opens and 
furthered the mission of OpenStack)


The Big Tent **was not a redefinition of what OpenStack was or is**.


This is in direct contradiction to the stated and collectively understood
goal of the project, and has left many scratching their heads.


I don't know what you are referring to above as "the stated and 
collectively understood goal of the project". Are you referring to the 
OpenStack Mission Statement? If so, see point above. The Big Tent didn't 
change the Mission nor did it redefine what OpenStack was.



The principles as written in the review do not accurately describe the
current state of the project. To make it so that they do, we either need
to change the principles or change the project. As I see it, our options
are:

1. Adjust the project to reflect the principles by abolishing The Big Tent.
2. Adjust the principles to reflect the project by redefining it as: ³A
collection of independent projects that work together for some level of
integration and releases.²

Personally, my vote is for option 1.


Sounds to me like you are just complaining about OpenStack having too 
many projects in it. If so, please tell us which projects you would have 
leave OpenStack.


No more deployment projects? Cut Triple-O, Fuel, Puppet, Chef, Ansible, 
Saltstack, devstack.


No more competing implementations of things? Cut Ceilometer or Monasca. 
Your choice.


No more Telco-specific stuff? Cut Tacker, networking-sfc, and a whole 
host of other stuff.


My vote is definitely for something #2-like, as I've said before and on 
the review, I believe OpenStack should be a "cloud toolkit" composed of 
well-scoped and limited services in the vein of the UNIX model of do one 
thing and do it well. I believe that vendors and cloud providers should 
be able to choose services and tools from this OpenStack cloud 

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Paul Dardeau]

Re: "One OpenStack" product

Is vim, less, awk, sed, and emacs one product? Are the bolt and nut of same
size (and produced by same manufacturer) sitting in a hardware store a
single product? A vote or edict does not automatically make things one
product - it only conveys a desire. I would argue that OpenStack is closer
to being a single, very large toolkit (instead of a product) that can be
configured and used in many different ways. For those that do consider it a
single product -- have you tried watching someone brand new to OpenStack
try to roll it out (not devstack)? If you still consider it a product, what
are the competing products and how easy are they to use?

In my view, a 'product' has a certain level of integration and common-ness
about it (still vague, I know). Some may argue that a product is
indivisible (or not readily indivisible).

-paul

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:22 AM, John Davidge 
wrote:

> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
> >contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
> >seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
> >decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
> >projects, or one thing".
> >
> >A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
> >pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
> >settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
> >here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
> >that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
> >OpenStack.
> >
> >Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
> >principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
> >But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
> >were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
> >properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
> >to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
> >change.
>
> To provide a counter point, I think the reason this question is asked so
> often is not because the TC has failed to *document* this policy, but that
> it has failed to *comply* with it.
>
> I¹m of course referring to the introduction of The Big Tent. This is the
> moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
> independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
> independent projects that work together for some level of integration and
> releases.²
>
> This is in direct contradiction to the stated and collectively understood
> goal of the project, and has left many scratching their heads.
>
> The principles as written in the review do not accurately describe the
> current state of the project. To make it so that they do, we either need
> to change the principles or change the project. As I see it, our options
> are:
>
> 1. Adjust the project to reflect the principles by abolishing The Big Tent.
> 2. Adjust the principles to reflect the project by redefining it as: ³A
> collection of independent projects that work together for some level of
> integration and releases.²
>
> Personally, my vote is for option 1.
>
> John
>
>
> 
> Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England & Wales (company
> registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington
> Road, Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy
> can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - This e-mail
> message may contain confidential or privileged information intended for the
> recipient. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed
> material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please
> notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com and delete the
> original message. Your cooperation is appreciated.
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Flavio Percoco]

On 08/09/16 23:41 -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Chris Dent wrote:


There's a governance proposal in progress at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.

I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
what we get up to.

At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].

I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
going well.

[1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
discussion in the present day.


Thanks for starting this chris, and I do also find it a little odd, 
but on a slightly different aspect...


This one along with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/365590/ (and 
others that I don't know about?) make me wonder what is going on 
with/in certain TC folks heads (not in a bad way, but the thought 
processes that are spurring these documents to be generated). Why the 
sudden desire to write down principles and intents and 'community' 
beliefs all of a sudden when it has been about 5 (or is it 6 now) 
years since the community started.


I really think Monty explained the intentions well enough here[0] and Thierry's
reply to this email also provides great insights of what motivates these
changes.

In addition to their comments, I want to add that definitely one of the
strongest motivations (at least for me) is to understand which of these
principles are shared an which aren't. As you can see from that change I
proposed, not many folks agree with assuming good faith from people and I think
that's perfect, valid and we should respect that.

As one of the folks that have always brought up "assuming good faith" whenever
possible, I admit that I mistakenly (?) assumed that it was shared practice (?
sorry, my english couldn't come up with a better word here) and this patched
proved me wrong. I think this is great and it's made the time spent on this work
already useful.

Flavio

[0] 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103242.html

Is there something I'm missing that all of a sudden as the going gets 
tough for various companies using openstack (businesses getting merged 
into other businesses, some going back into private ownership...) and 
the big tent IMHO diluted what is openstack (I believe to dangerous 
levels) that all of a sudden it felt like a useful thing to spend time 
on beliefs or principles vs say like ummm, technical things (the T in 
TC) :-/


Just strikes at least myself, as sort of weird; and not exactly a 
thing I would realistically be worried about if I was in a technical 
committee position at the current time.


-Josh

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Flavio Percoco]

On 09/09/16 10:22 +, John Davidge wrote:

Thierry Carrez wrote:


[...]
In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
projects, or one thing".

A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
OpenStack.

Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
change.


To provide a counter point, I think the reason this question is asked so
often is not because the TC has failed to *document* this policy, but that
it has failed to *comply* with it.

I¹m of course referring to the introduction of The Big Tent. This is the
moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
independent projects that work together for some level of integration and
releases.²

This is in direct contradiction to the stated and collectively understood
goal of the project, and has left many scratching their heads.

The principles as written in the review do not accurately describe the
current state of the project. To make it so that they do, we either need
to change the principles or change the project. As I see it, our options
are:

1. Adjust the project to reflect the principles by abolishing The Big Tent.
2. Adjust the principles to reflect the project by redefining it as: ³A
collection of independent projects that work together for some level of
integration and releases.²


I think #2 is missing a critical part, which is that these "independent"
projects are working towards a unified mission. This differentiates OpenStack
from many other communities out there and it helps understanding the principles
and other changes a bit better. But I might be biased here :/

Either way, writing down this principles has proven the effort useful already.
It doesn't matter if the outcome is a well thought-out document or a set of
changes to the community. The time spent writing this document is already
helping us to get rid of some tribal knowledge.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[John Davidge]

Thierry Carrez wrote:

>[...]
>In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
>contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
>seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
>decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
>projects, or one thing".
>
>A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
>pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
>settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
>here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
>that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
>OpenStack.
>
>Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
>principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
>But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
>were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
>properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
>to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
>change.

To provide a counter point, I think the reason this question is asked so
often is not because the TC has failed to *document* this policy, but that
it has failed to *comply* with it.

I¹m of course referring to the introduction of The Big Tent. This is the
moment that OpenStack stopped being: ³A single product made of a lot of
independent, but cooperating, components.² And became: ³A collection of
independent projects that work together for some level of integration and
releases.²

This is in direct contradiction to the stated and collectively understood
goal of the project, and has left many scratching their heads.

The principles as written in the review do not accurately describe the
current state of the project. To make it so that they do, we either need
to change the principles or change the project. As I see it, our options
are:

1. Adjust the project to reflect the principles by abolishing The Big Tent.
2. Adjust the principles to reflect the project by redefining it as: ³A
collection of independent projects that work together for some level of
integration and releases.²

Personally, my vote is for option 1.

John



Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England & Wales (company 
registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, 
Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be 
viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - This e-mail message may 
contain confidential or privileged information intended for the recipient. Any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. 
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com and delete the original message. Your cooperation 
is appreciated.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Flavio Percoco]

Please, if you haven't, I'd love for you to read Monty's response. He explained
in way better words what I was not able too:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103242.html

Flavio

On 08/09/16 11:32 -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote:

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Chris Dent  wrote:


That is, it thinks of itself as an existing truth to be ratified.



Gah!  YES!!  Exactly this!  Well said!

And this attitude keeps getting echoed again and again from the current
oligarchy TC!  "We know what OpenStack is; we know the principles we
operate under."

[from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/]

If the OpenStack Principles are in conflict with someone's thoughts
or dreams, it is probably best to find something else to do that is more
aligned with those


How can you get behind a document with a closing paragraph like this!?
OBEY OR LEAVE?!


Because of the ordering of the process and the
presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.


Gah!  YES!  Please pay attention!

I know how it feels - I too want to focus *only* on THE MISSON:

[from
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#openstack-project-teams
]

OpenStack “Project Teams” are groups of people dedicated to the
completion of the OpenStack project mission, which is ‘’to produce the
ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables building
interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud
users’ needs.’’ Project Teams may create any code repository and produce
any deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals.


^ what an amazing mission!!!

But remember, our mission must be "performed under the *oversight* of
the TC" - the trick is - *we* elect that *representative* governance!
Elections are next month people!

http://governance.openstack.org/#current-members

OpenStack for the Operators!

Not OpenStack for OpenStack sake!

-Clay



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thierry Carrez]

Joshua Harlow wrote:
> [...]
> This one along with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/365590/ (and others
> that I don't know about?) make me wonder what is going on with/in
> certain TC folks heads (not in a bad way, but the thought processes that
> are spurring these documents to be generated). Why the sudden desire to
> write down principles and intents and 'community' beliefs all of a
> sudden when it has been about 5 (or is it 6 now) years since the
> community started.

I can answer that one.

In the last years there were a lot of "questions" asked by random
contributors, especially around the "One OpenStack" principle (which
seems to fuel most of the reaction here). Remarks like "we should really
decide once and for all if OpenStack is a collection of independent
projects, or one thing".

A lot of people actually ignore that this question was already asked,
pretty early on (by John Dickinson in June 2011). Back then it was
settled by the PPB (the ancestor to the TC). You can read it all
here[1]. It was never brought again as a proposed change to the TC, so
that decision from June 2011 is still defining how we should think about
OpenStack.

Most of the TC members know the governance history and know those
principles. That is, after all, one of the reasons you elect them for.
But we realized that the people asking those questions again and again
were not at fault. It was our failure to *document* this history
properly which caused the issue. Took us some time to gather the courage
to write it, then finally Monty wrote a draft, and I turned it into a
change.

[1]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-06-28-20.06.html

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Julien Danjou]

On Fri, Sep 09 2016, gordon chung wrote:

> On 08/09/16 09:13 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
>> The truth, for me, is that I agree with most of the things in the
>> document. What is problematic for me is that I know a lot of people
>> who will not. Because of the ordering of the process and the
>> presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
>> carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.
>
> i read it... and did this ^. you know us so well.

Ditto as I said on IRC lol.

> it seems like a lot of the issues people have are because either the 
> tenet is ambiguous, the tenet is arguably untrue, and/or it's not clear 
> why we even need the tenet.

Yeah, though I agree with Chris that I tend to feel the process being
biased by how it's run (e.g. top-bottom).
On the other hand, one can argue that the TC is elected by the community
so if you don't agree with what they wrote, you elected the wrong
people.

Now, why the TC picked a top-bottom approach whereas some sort of
crowd-sourcing of the principles could have been done is questionable –
though probably highly pragmatic. :)

> maybe if we want to progress on this, it'd be best to explain why we 
> even consider it necessary to write down the principle in the first 
> place. e.g we are writing principle x because it helps us solve problem 
> y. you'll probably get even more critical feedback when you do this but 
> if you do, it'll help affirm that you probably don't need to write this.

I think writing is down is building a good tool that you can use to
refer to if anything is going in a different direction – it's not just
"something everybody should know" but "something everybody can know".

Some sort of "ignorantia juris non excusat".

The short term problem that I see from both the approach and the
writing-down itself, is that the result of it might end up having some
folks not recognizing themselves anymore in OpenStack. It's an easy trap
when the knowledge is tribal to think everybody is on the same line,
whereas it's not true.

So those guidelines might clear everything for everyone, but also make
some people/project not in line.

-- 
Julien Danjou
// Free Software hacker
// https://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Joshua Harlow]

Chris Dent wrote:


There's a governance proposal in progress at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.

I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
what we get up to.

At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].

I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
going well.

[1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
discussion in the present day.


Thanks for starting this chris, and I do also find it a little odd, but 
on a slightly different aspect...


This one along with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/365590/ (and others 
that I don't know about?) make me wonder what is going on with/in 
certain TC folks heads (not in a bad way, but the thought processes that 
are spurring these documents to be generated). Why the sudden desire to 
write down principles and intents and 'community' beliefs all of a 
sudden when it has been about 5 (or is it 6 now) years since the 
community started.


Is there something I'm missing that all of a sudden as the going gets 
tough for various companies using openstack (businesses getting merged 
into other businesses, some going back into private ownership...) and 
the big tent IMHO diluted what is openstack (I believe to dangerous 
levels) that all of a sudden it felt like a useful thing to spend time 
on beliefs or principles vs say like ummm, technical things (the T in 
TC) :-/


Just strikes at least myself, as sort of weird; and not exactly a thing 
I would realistically be worried about if I was in a technical committee 
position at the current time.


-Josh

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Hayes, Graham]

On 08/09/2016 06:17, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I think you're expressing in a negative way something
>> that was thought in a positive way. The motivation to write the
>> principles down is to help the community with the help from the
>> community. No one is pushing anyone's beliefs on anyone. The idea to
>> write these principles down came out of a retrospective and someone
>> actually signed up for the work.
>
> I don't dispute that writing things down is a positive. It is a _huge_
> positive. What I'm disputing is the process with which it is happening.

Definitely - I am happy to see this put somewhere permanent.

> The writing is starting from a detailed proposal which, as txx said in
> his response to me above, presents itself as a document that is "meant
> to document *existing* principles that we operate under but never
> documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really
> changing anything".
>
> That is, it thinks of iself as an existing truth to be ratified.
>
> That would be great except that it is clear from the comments on the
> review and comments we've seen on this list and elsewhere that the
> truths are not universally held. If that's indeed the case, then we need
> to make adjustments to the process and the document to be inclusive and
> make greater progress on putting to bed some of the arguments we
> continually have, but fail to resolve.

This is my issue with the review. It states that these are the *current*
rules we live by. While these may be the rules we currently aspire to,
they are not what we live by, and this needs to be reflected.

>> I do not think the process is trying to push few ppl beliefs on the
>> community. Someone had to write something down first, right? Someone
>> had to kick this off somehow, right? I hardly believe we could have
>> collected a list of principles to reason about out of a mailing list
>> thread. These list is just a starting point for us to add/remove stuff
>> to it either on follow-up patches or the same one.
>
> As I said in my original posting, again above, and supported by ttx's
> response, the current proposal and its mode of presentation
> presuppose the principles. That starting point biases any future
> discussions. That's problematic if the end goal are principles that
> everyone actually understands and agrees.
>
>> As everything else we do in this community, this work is meant to
>> evolve and progress but again, we have to start somewhere. With what's
>> in that review, I believe it'll be easier for everyone to reason about
>> the document and the expectations of it.
>
> I hope we can agree to disagree, cordially. We seem to want the same
> positive things to happen, we are disagreeing on the process. I
> merely wish there had been more public engagement, sooner, and a
> greater sense of doubt and request for assistance in the document.

I would second the need for sooner engagement - my missing it may be my
own fault as I missed the Stewardship WG meeting this week due to
travelling, but I think a bigger cross section, earlier, is important.

When I look at the TC, there is a lot of people who have come from
larger or horizontal projects. These projects get a different point
of view to smaller projects. Only allowing these views after the draft
is finished makes getting their point of view more difficult, as the
document is more solid.

> The truth, for me, is that I agree with most of the things in the
> document. What is problematic for me is that I know a lot of people
> who will not. Because of the ordering of the process and the
> presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
> carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.
>

This. The only reason I saw this review was I saw a tweet.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[gordon chung]

On 08/09/16 09:13 AM, Chris Dent wrote:

> The truth, for me, is that I agree with most of the things in the
> document. What is problematic for me is that I know a lot of people
> who will not. Because of the ordering of the process and the
> presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
> carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.

i read it... and did this ^. you know us so well.

it seems like a lot of the issues people have are because either the 
tenet is ambiguous, the tenet is arguably untrue, and/or it's not clear 
why we even need the tenet.

maybe if we want to progress on this, it'd be best to explain why we 
even consider it necessary to write down the principle in the first 
place. e.g we are writing principle x because it helps us solve problem 
y. you'll probably get even more critical feedback when you do this but 
if you do, it'll help affirm that you probably don't need to write this.

cheers,

-- 
gord

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Clay Gerrard]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Chris Dent  wrote:
>
> That is, it thinks of itself as an existing truth to be ratified.
>

Gah!  YES!!  Exactly this!  Well said!

And this attitude keeps getting echoed again and again from the current
oligarchy TC!  "We know what OpenStack is; we know the principles we
operate under."

[from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/]
> If the OpenStack Principles are in conflict with someone's thoughts
> or dreams, it is probably best to find something else to do that is more
> aligned with those

How can you get behind a document with a closing paragraph like this!?
OBEY OR LEAVE?!

> Because of the ordering of the process and the
> presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
> carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.

Gah!  YES!  Please pay attention!

I know how it feels - I too want to focus *only* on THE MISSON:

[from
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#openstack-project-teams
]
> OpenStack “Project Teams” are groups of people dedicated to the
> completion of the OpenStack project mission, which is ‘’to produce the
> ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables building
> interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
> simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud
> users’ needs.’’ Project Teams may create any code repository and produce
> any deliverable they deem necessary to achieve their goals.

^ what an amazing mission!!!

But remember, our mission must be "performed under the *oversight* of
the TC" - the trick is - *we* elect that *representative* governance!
Elections are next month people!

http://governance.openstack.org/#current-members

OpenStack for the Operators!

Not OpenStack for OpenStack sake!

-Clay
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Edward Leafe]

On Sep 8, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Chris Dent  wrote:

> The writing is starting from a detailed proposal which, as txx said in
> his response to me above, presents itself as a document that is "meant
> to document *existing* principles that we operate under but never
> documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really
> changing anything".
> 
> That is, it thinks of iself as an existing truth to be ratified.

I think that you've made an excellent case for exactly the sort of process that 
is being followed. Let me explain.

As Monty explained, the document is the result of the TC realizing that there 
were many things that were part of their shared understanding, but which were 
not necessarily things that a newcomer to OpenStack would realize. The document 
they are creating is simply a way to capture that tribal knowledge so that it 
is discoverable by everyone.

While I'm not a member of the TC, I have been closely following it for a few 
years now, and attend nearly every meeting. So I had some additional context 
that you might not have, and thus had a very different reaction to the 
document. The more that these things are recorded and available to all, the 
better it will be for the community, which is something that I know you 
violently agree with. :) This is just the first step in the documentation 
process of where we are today, so that everyone has a common starting point for 
discussing where we would like to be in the future.


-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Monty Taylor]

On 09/08/2016 06:18 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> 
> There's a governance proposal in progress at
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
> visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
> OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.
> 
> I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
> project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
> been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
> assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
> what we get up to.
> 
> At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
> interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
> preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
> engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
> I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.
> 
> The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
> what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
> agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
> that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
> obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
> the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].
>
> I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
> much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
> do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
> the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
> talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
> going well.
> 
> [1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
> about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
> authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
> discussion in the present day.

tl;dr - We need to accurately capture the existing tribal knowledge as a
prerequisite for being able to have open and productive discussions
about changing it.

I totally hear what you're saying, and I agree with what I think you'd
like to see - which is a vibrant and substantive discussion about what
our principles _should_ be.

However, we're currently in a position (and have been for quite some
time) where there exists some shared understandings between people who
are in positions of technical leadership for OpenStack. Last time a the
majority of the TC was together, we realized that there were a set of
unspoken assumptions that we carried and used to judge things - and that
having those be unspoken is pretty terrible.

This is an attempt to capture the current state of the world and remedy
that problem.

Once that exists, it should empower everyone to actually challenge and
discuss them. It's pretty hard to suggest a change to the fundamental
fabric of something if there is no thing to change, and currently the
only way to really do so would be to corner a bunch of people one on one
at a Summit or something.

A conversation about what we _want_ the principles to be is an EXCELLENT
idea. I just don't think it can happen if people are not all aware of
the assumptions we've been operating under. Any of these being
controversial is an indication, to me, of the problem and why it's
essential that we take the first step of writing them down rather than
continuing to merely hold them as tribal knowledge.

Also - although I know the current review comments may seem like picky
wordsmithing, I think they are pretty essential. These are concepts that
have been around in OpenStack for a long time - but they haven't been
expressed clearly or at all. Making sure that what is written down
represents accurate communication is essential. Possibly the only thing
worse than having fundamental tenets that only exist as tribal knowledge
is having them written down inaccurately.

Monty

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Chris Dent]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:


To be honest, I think you're expressing in a negative way something
that was thought in a positive way. The motivation to write the
principles down is to help the community with the help from the
community. No one is pushing anyone's beliefs on anyone. The idea to
write these principles down came out of a retrospective and someone
actually signed up for the work.


I don't dispute that writing things down is a positive. It is a _huge_
positive. What I'm disputing is the process with which it is happening.

The writing is starting from a detailed proposal which, as txx said in
his response to me above, presents itself as a document that is "meant
to document *existing* principles that we operate under but never
documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really
changing anything".

That is, it thinks of iself as an existing truth to be ratified.

That would be great except that it is clear from the comments on the
review and comments we've seen on this list and elsewhere that the
truths are not universally held. If that's indeed the case, then we need
to make adjustments to the process and the document to be inclusive and
make greater progress on putting to bed some of the arguments we
continually have, but fail to resolve.


I do not think the process is trying to push few ppl beliefs on the
community. Someone had to write something down first, right? Someone
had to kick this off somehow, right? I hardly believe we could have
collected a list of principles to reason about out of a mailing list
thread. These list is just a starting point for us to add/remove stuff
to it either on follow-up patches or the same one.


As I said in my original posting, again above, and supported by ttx's
response, the current proposal and its mode of presentation
presuppose the principles. That starting point biases any future
discussions. That's problematic if the end goal are principles that
everyone actually understands and agrees.


As everything else we do in this community, this work is meant to
evolve and progress but again, we have to start somewhere. With what's
in that review, I believe it'll be easier for everyone to reason about
the document and the expectations of it.


I hope we can agree to disagree, cordially. We seem to want the same
positive things to happen, we are disagreeing on the process. I
merely wish there had been more public engagement, sooner, and a
greater sense of doubt and request for assistance in the document.

The truth, for me, is that I agree with most of the things in the
document. What is problematic for me is that I know a lot of people
who will not. Because of the ordering of the process and the
presumption of the document they will simply choose to ignore it and
carry on with whatever other important things they've got going on.

--
Chris Dent   ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Flavio Percoco]

On 08/09/16 12:18 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:


There's a governance proposal in progress at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.

I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
what we get up to.

At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].

I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
going well.

[1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
discussion in the present day.


To be honest, I think you're expressing in a negative way something that was
thought in a positive way. The motivation to write the principles down is to
help the community with the help from the community. No one is pushing anyone's
beliefs on anyone. The idea to write these principles down came out of a
retrospective and someone actually signed up for the work.

I do not think the process is trying to push few ppl beliefs on the community.
Someone had to write something down first, right? Someone had to kick this off
somehow, right? I hardly believe we could have collected a list of principles to
reason about out of a mailing list thread. These list is just a starting point
for us to add/remove stuff to it either on follow-up patches or the same one.

As everything else we do in this community, this work is meant to evolve and
progress but again, we have to start somewhere. With what's in that review, I
believe it'll be easier for everyone to reason about the document and the
expectations of it.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Thierry Carrez]

Chris Dent wrote:
> There's a governance proposal in progress at
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
> visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
> OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.
> 
> I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
> project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
> been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
> assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
> what we get up to.
> 
> At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
> interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
> preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
> engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
> I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

Yeah, as I commented on the review I wanted to get to a draft that was
complete enough and reflected the current thinking of the TC, before we
started a wider discussion on the ML. That said, we seem to only discuss
details at this stage, so it's probably time to start a wider discussion
on those.

I wanted to do one more patchset to take into account the latest round
of comments before starting the thread, but now is as good to start it
(yay, less work).

One thing to remember when reading this change is that it's meant to
document *existing* principles that we operate under but never
documented properly. It's not really about a new set of rules, or really
changing anything.

Please share your thoughts on the review or this thread !

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [all] governance proposal worth a visit: Write down OpenStack principles

[Chris Dent]

There's a governance proposal in progress at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ that I think is worth a
visit by anyone interested in the definition and evolution of
OpenStack's identity and the processes and guidelines used in OpenStack.

I'm assuming that not everyone regularly cruises the governance
project so this thing, which is pretty important, has probably not
been seen yet by many community members. It is full of many
assertions, some probably controversial, about what OpenStack is and
what we get up to.

At the moment a lot of the reviews are obsessing over the details and
interpretations of various phrases and paragraphs. This is in
preparation for a later presentation to the community that ought to
engender a long email thread where we will discuss it and try to ratify.
I fear that discussion will also obsess over the details.

The ordering here is backwards from a process that could be happening if
what we want is effective engagement and a useful outcome (one where we
agree). We should first have a conversation about the general principles
that are desired, then capture those into a document and only then
obsess over the details. The current process will inevitably privilege
the existing text and thus the bias of the authors[1].

I presume that the process that is happening was chosen to avoid too
much bikeshedding. The issue with that is that the work we need to
do is stepping back a bit and concerning ourselves not with the color of
the shed, but with whether it is for bikes, or even a shed. Last we
talked about it, it was a tent, but there's no consensus that that is
going well.

[1] I don't wish to indicate that there's anything wrong (or right!)
about the current text, simply that it is a presentation of a few
authors, including some written in the past, not a summary of an open
discussion in the present day.

--
Chris Dent   ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev