Re: [openstack-dev] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:23 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Joshua Hesketh writes: > > > So the "winterscale infrastructure council"'s purview is quite limited in > > scope to just govern the services provided? > > > > If so, would you foresee a need to maintain some kind of "Infrastructure > > council" as it exists at the moment to be the technical design body? > > For the foreseeable future, I think the "winterscale infrastructure > team" can probably handle that. If it starts to sprawl again, we can > make a new body. > > > Specifically, wouldn't we still want somewhere for the "winterscale > > infrastructure team" to be represented and would that expand to any > > infrastructure-related core teams? > > Can you elaborate on this? I'm not following. > I think your first response answers this a little bit. That is, the "winterscale infrastructure team" serves the purpose of technical design (that is currently done by the "Infrastructure Council", so we've got some change in terminology that will be initially confusing). Currently though the "Infrastructure Council" includes "All members of any infrastructure project core team" which would include people from say git-review core. My question was how do we still include infrastructure-related core members (such as git-review-core) in the new world order? Hope that makes more sense. Cheers, Josh > > -Jim > > __ > 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] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
Joshua Hesketh writes: > So the "winterscale infrastructure council"'s purview is quite limited in > scope to just govern the services provided? > > If so, would you foresee a need to maintain some kind of "Infrastructure > council" as it exists at the moment to be the technical design body? For the foreseeable future, I think the "winterscale infrastructure team" can probably handle that. If it starts to sprawl again, we can make a new body. > Specifically, wouldn't we still want somewhere for the "winterscale > infrastructure team" to be represented and would that expand to any > infrastructure-related core teams? Can you elaborate on this? I'm not following. -Jim __ 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] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:25 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Hi, > > With recent changes implemented by the OpenStack Foundation to include > projects other than "OpenStack" under its umbrella, it has become clear > that the "Project Infrastructure Team" needs to change. > > The infrastructure that is run for the OpenStack project is valued by > other OpenStack Foundation projects (and beyond). Our community has not > only produced an amazing cloud infrastructure system, but it has also > pioneered new tools and techniques for software development and > collaboration. > > For some time it's been apparent that we need to alter the way we run > services in order to accommodate other Foundation projects. We've been > talking about this informally for at least the last several months. One > of the biggest sticking points has been a name for the effort. It seems > very likely that we will want a new top-level domain for hosting > multiple projects in a neutral environment (so that people don't have to > say "hosted on OpenStack's infrastructure"). But finding such a name is > difficult, and even before we do, we need to talk about it. > > I propose we call the overall effort "winterscale". In the best > tradition of code names, it means nothing; look for no hidden meaning > here. We won't use it for any actual services we provide. We'll use it > to refer to the overall effort of restructuring our team and > infrastructure to provide services to projects beyond OpenStack itself. > And we'll stop using it when the restructuring effort is concluded. > > This is my first proposal: that we acknowledge this effort is underway > and name it as such. > > My second proposal is an organizational structure for this effort. > First, some goals: > > * The infrastructure should be collaboratively run as it is now, and > the operational decisions should be made by the core reviewers as > they are now. > > * Issues of service definition (i.e., what services we offer and how > they are used) should be made via a collaborative process including > the infrastructure operators and the projects which use it. > > To that end, I propose that we: > > * Work with the Foundation to create a new effort independent of the > OpenStack project with the goal of operating infrastructure for the > wider OpenStack Foundation community. > > * Work with the Foundation marketing team to help us with the branding > and marketing of this effort. > > * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure team" (to be renamed) > consisting of the current infra-core team members to operate this > effort. > > * Move many of the git repos currently under the OpenStack project > infrastructure team's governance to this new team. > > * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure council" (to be renamed) which > will govern the services that the team provides by vote. The council > will consist of the PTL of the winterscale infrastructure team and one > member from each official OpenStack Foundation project. Currently, as > I understand it, there's only one: OpenStack. But we expect kata, > zuul, and others to be declared official in the not too distant > future. The winterscale representative (the PTL) will have > tiebreaking and veto power over council decisions. > So the "winterscale infrastructure council"'s purview is quite limited in scope to just govern the services provided? If so, would you foresee a need to maintain some kind of "Infrastructure council" as it exists at the moment to be the technical design body? Specifically, wouldn't we still want somewhere for the "winterscale infrastructure team" to be represented and would that expand to any infrastructure-related core teams? Cheers, Josh > > (This is structured loosely based on the current Infrastructure > Council used by the OpenStack Project Infrastructure Team.) > > None of this is obviously final. My goal here is to give this effort a > name and a starting point so that we can discuss it and make progress. > > -Jim > > __ > 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
[openstack-dev] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
Hi, With recent changes implemented by the OpenStack Foundation to include projects other than "OpenStack" under its umbrella, it has become clear that the "Project Infrastructure Team" needs to change. The infrastructure that is run for the OpenStack project is valued by other OpenStack Foundation projects (and beyond). Our community has not only produced an amazing cloud infrastructure system, but it has also pioneered new tools and techniques for software development and collaboration. For some time it's been apparent that we need to alter the way we run services in order to accommodate other Foundation projects. We've been talking about this informally for at least the last several months. One of the biggest sticking points has been a name for the effort. It seems very likely that we will want a new top-level domain for hosting multiple projects in a neutral environment (so that people don't have to say "hosted on OpenStack's infrastructure"). But finding such a name is difficult, and even before we do, we need to talk about it. I propose we call the overall effort "winterscale". In the best tradition of code names, it means nothing; look for no hidden meaning here. We won't use it for any actual services we provide. We'll use it to refer to the overall effort of restructuring our team and infrastructure to provide services to projects beyond OpenStack itself. And we'll stop using it when the restructuring effort is concluded. This is my first proposal: that we acknowledge this effort is underway and name it as such. My second proposal is an organizational structure for this effort. First, some goals: * The infrastructure should be collaboratively run as it is now, and the operational decisions should be made by the core reviewers as they are now. * Issues of service definition (i.e., what services we offer and how they are used) should be made via a collaborative process including the infrastructure operators and the projects which use it. To that end, I propose that we: * Work with the Foundation to create a new effort independent of the OpenStack project with the goal of operating infrastructure for the wider OpenStack Foundation community. * Work with the Foundation marketing team to help us with the branding and marketing of this effort. * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure team" (to be renamed) consisting of the current infra-core team members to operate this effort. * Move many of the git repos currently under the OpenStack project infrastructure team's governance to this new team. * Establish a "winterscale infrastructure council" (to be renamed) which will govern the services that the team provides by vote. The council will consist of the PTL of the winterscale infrastructure team and one member from each official OpenStack Foundation project. Currently, as I understand it, there's only one: OpenStack. But we expect kata, zuul, and others to be declared official in the not too distant future. The winterscale representative (the PTL) will have tiebreaking and veto power over council decisions. (This is structured loosely based on the current Infrastructure Council used by the OpenStack Project Infrastructure Team.) None of this is obviously final. My goal here is to give this effort a name and a starting point so that we can discuss it and make progress. -Jim __ 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
