Doug Hellmann wrote:
> There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered
> part of the big tent: It needs to be listed in the projects.yaml
> file in the openstack/governance repository, associated with a
> deliverable from a team that has been accepted as a big tent member.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sergey Lukjanov
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> First of all, let me say that it’s a marketing announcement and as all of
> you know such announcements aren’t precise from a technical side.
> Personally I’ve seen this paper first time on
Thanks Doug. I didn't pick up on your choice of Zane's point #1. If that
is how the rest of the TC feels about it, that wfm. I will be submitting
a resolution with your wording so clarity is reached and not lost in a
mailing list thread in the future when this issue occurs again.
Regards
Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:40:29 +:
>
> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" wrote:
>
> >Steven,
> >
> >Please see response from Doug:
> >http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
>
> Dims,
>
> Are you implying Doug's position
Steve,
This thread has degenerated. So my request is to use Doug's post as
status quo. If there's disagreement then file for a resolution that
suits them
-- Dims
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"
If it ever becomes necessary for us to pass a resolution to deal with
every disagreement, we might as well all go herd goats.
This is a very straightforward situation, which has been blown out of
all reasonable proportion through well-intentioned but misplaced
concerns.
Please, everyone, let's
On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" wrote:
>Steven,
>
>Please see response from Doug:
>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
Dims,
Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?
I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's
Steven,
Please see response from Doug:
http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
Let's stop this thread now please.
Thanks,
Dims
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Dims,
>
> I
Dims,
I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
problem via a resolution. That’s why we elected you folks :)
Regards
-steve
On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" wrote:
>Zane, Steve,
>
>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 14:38:12 -0400:
> On 28/07/16 14:20, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
> > "part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
> > to be part of the OpenStack tent?
>
> If
On 28/07/16 14:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Zane,
I don't understand why you're directing this reply to me. I *just* made
clear that I don't have any interest one way or the other.
There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
on the ML. I personally was helpful to
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:29:18PM -0400, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >The TC has given guidance on this already:
> >
> >http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
> >
> >
> >"In order to simplify software development lifecycle
On 07/28/2016 07:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> I think it is a reasonable expectation that teams would want to add
> their new repositories to the governance list to have the rights
> that go along with that, but I'm not aware of any requirement that
> they do so.
Reviewing that change
Hello,
So as some of you might know, I write from a peculiar position. I'm
both Kolla core and Intel.
I don't like to see where this thread is going to. We are all one
community, we are all OpenStack after all. I think what's hurting us
here is this sense of competition. I would like to share my
Zane,
There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
on the ML. I personally was helpful to some extent with the beginnning
of kolla-kubernetes.
So i don't think it's a lack of communication that's to blame.
Also if you see the repos, there's not much there... In effect
On 28/07/16 14:20, Jay Pipes wrote:
How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
to be part of the OpenStack tent?
If it were clear what it means for a repo to be "part of the OpenStack
tent" then it
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be "part
> of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying to be part
> of the OpenStack tent?
>
> Just curious here...
Related, Flavio
On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:
The TC has given guidance on this already:
http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
to be part of the OpenStack tent?
Just curious here...
-jay
On 07/28/2016 02:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Jay,
I'll be frank. I have been
Zane, Steve,
I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
Thanks,
-- Dims
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I'll be frank. I have been
Jay,
I'll be frank. I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
tent project. These are not just Kolla developers. These are people from
all over the community. They want something done about it. I agree with
On 7/28/2016 11:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 22:56:56 +:
I think that would be true, if the container api was opinionated. for example,
trying to map only a subset of the openstack config options to docker
environment variables. This would
I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 12:15:34 -0400:
> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> > Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> > don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
> > At the moment the team is
Jay,
That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
Regards,
-steve
On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>The TC has given guidance on this already:
>
>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement
>.html
>
>"In order to simplify software
The TC has given guidance on this already:
http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
within the OpenStack project
+1
From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:33 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s
Doug,
Zane's analysis is correct. I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.
Regards
-steve
On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" wrote:
>On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 22:56:56 +:
> I think that would be true, if the container api was opinionated. for
> example, trying to map only a subset of the openstack config options to
> docker environment variables. This would make the containers specific to what
>
:* Vladimir Kozhukalov [vkozhuka...@mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:48 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like
Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>1. Alter the miss
Mirantis
is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
>Repository
Frankly, I don’t understa
On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
functional tests that are to be
Thanks for the clarity Doug.
Regards
-steve
On 7/28/16, 8:37 AM, "Doug Hellmann" wrote:
>Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-07-28 16:43:35 +0200:
>> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-07-28 16:43:35 +0200:
> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
> >
> >>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M
Hi folks,
First of all, let me say that it’s a marketing announcement and as all of
you know such announcements aren’t precise from a technical side.
Personally I’ve seen this paper first time on TechCrunch.
First of all, fuel-ccp-* are a set of OpenStack projects and everyone is
welcome to
: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>
>> 1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>>>
>>
>> published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>>>
>>
>> 2. Include these
On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
Repository
Frankly, I don’t understand
On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator"
] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
>Reposito
>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
>Repository
Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts with
Fuel
On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>>>thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla
: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 21:51:15 +:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with
> specified config regardless if its
Ok. :)
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:05 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 21:51:15 +:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with
> specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source
> based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized
>
.
Best,
-jay
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07/27/2016 04
@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Its not an "end user" facing t
Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2016-07-27 10:59:06 -0500:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>
> >> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
> >> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production,
> and rely on that
consumable api to me.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:02 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
gards
-steve
>
>>
>> From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is
>&g
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul
, 2016 10:36 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Josh
On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow
wrote:
Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was
On Jul 27, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.
Precisely, which is why we have humans and not computer algorithms to decide
these things.
-- Ed Leafe
On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
-- if someone wanted to develop a
, 2016 5:30 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> w
On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them
Michael Still wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M > wrote:
[snip]
The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is
currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment
[snip]
This seems
From: Michael Still [mi...@stillhq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:30 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM,
ednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:30 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) k
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
[snip]
The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is
> currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment
[snip]
This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is
n worse?
>Are the technical differences really that far apart to prevent it?
>
>Does that help to clarify the concern?
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>____
>From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 P
]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:42:10PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:42:10PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen" wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >> Dims,
> >>
> >> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas
On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen" wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Dims,
>>
>> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this
>>partnership
>> in this press release was announced and the full intent
+1
From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:47 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Dims,
>
> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this partnership
> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project was
> understood. The argument I see used in the review is that
Dims,
The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this partnership
in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project was
understood. The argument I see used in the review is that since fuel-ccp
not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml
Steven,
fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/
Thanks,
Dims
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Dims,
>
> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
> Google in
Dims,
Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is for
this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent. The right thing to do
72 matches
Mail list logo