Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
Doug Hellmann writes: >> * Move many of the git repos currently under the OpenStack project >> infrastructure team's governance to this new team. > > I'm curious about the "many" in that sentence. Which do you anticipate > not moving, and if this new team replaces the existing team then who > would end up owning the ones that do not move? There are a lot. Generally speaking, I think most of the custom software, deployment tooling, and configuration would move. An example of something that probably shouldn't move is "openstack-zuul-jobs". We still need people that are concerned with how OpenStack uses the winterscale service. I'm not sure whether that should be its own team or should those functions get folded into other teams. >> * 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. > > That structure seems sound, although it means the council is going > to be rather small (at least in the near term). What sorts of > decisions do you anticipate needing to be addressed by this council? Yes, very small. Perhaps we need an interim structure until it gets larger? Or perhaps just discipline and agreement that the two people on it will consult with the necessary constituencies and represent them well? I expect the council not to have to vote very often. Perhaps only on substantial changes to services (bringing a new offering online, retiring a disused offering, establishing parameters of a service). As an example, the recent thread on "terms of service" would be a good topic for the council to settle. >> (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 >> > > Thanks for starting this thread! I've replied to both mailing lists > because I wasn't sure which was more appropriate. Please let me > know if I should focus future replies on one list. Indeed, perhaps we should steer this toward openstack-dev now. I'll drop openstack-infra from future replies. -Jim ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Winterscale: a proposal regarding the project infrastructure
Excerpts from corvus's message of 2018-05-30 09:25:14 -0700: > 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. I'm curious about the "many" in that sentence. Which do you anticipate not moving, and if this new team replaces the existing team then who would end up owning the ones that do not move? > > * 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. That structure seems sound, although it means the council is going to be rather small (at least in the near term). What sorts of decisions do you anticipate needing to be addressed by this council? > > (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 > Thanks for starting this thread! I've replied to both mailing lists because I wasn't sure which was more appropriate. Please let me know if I should focus future replies on one list. Doug ___ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
[OpenStack-Infra] 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-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
