openstack-poc team mailing list archive

["John Purrier" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree. The fact remains that we need some leadership from the community over the API's. And it would be nice to have a reference implementation.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:06 PM
To: John Purrier
Cc: Jonathan Bryce; openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Monty Taylor
Subject: Re: [Openstack-poc] PPB Meeting on June 2nd

I'd like to point out that incubation of a project and a proposed API
are two very different things, and if we couple them too tightly, we
will make unnecessary problems for ourselves.

I feel that there should be ZERO barrier to entry for the proposal of
the API spec. Once people determine what the API should look like,
teams are then free to implement the API any way they choose. This
way, we will be governing the OpenStack *APIs* and we can more easily
determine incubation status by looking to see if the project has
implemented the proposed API for their endpoint and have tests to
prove it.

Just a thought.  It would be much easier to discuss the proposed
Network and Volume APIs versus discussing whether team Lunr or team
Quantum are doing a good job implementing an API we don't know about
yet.

-jay

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM, John Purrier <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> With the suggested changes and a clear message around timing and promotion
> criteria I vote +1. Consider this my absentee ballot.
>
> We really need to get projects such as Quantum and Lunr into incubation so
> we can get some level of control over the network and volume APIs and
> services. I think the network guys are doing a good job of being open and
> engaged, the volume effort less so.
>
> With the work being done to incorporate Keystone as part of all the project
> data flows, this is another key project we should consider asap. I also
> think these three projects must have serious consideration as promotion to
> core at the E DS, we should quickly set expectations amongst the teams and
> community correctly. With the level of commitment incubation implies I can
> direct Monty, Soren, Thierry, et al toward integrating these projects into
> the build/qa/packaging automation processes.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openstack-poc-bounces+john=openstack.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:openstack-poc-bounces+john=openstack.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Bryce
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:11 AM
> To: openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-poc] PPB Meeting on June 2nd
>
> I agree that this makes sense as well. Something along the lines of projects
> can enter incubation at any point, projects that feel like they're ready to
> move to core will be voted on 6 weeks prior to design summit to be promoted
> or not. PTLs will be elected 4 weeks before (I believe this is the existing
> schedule). If you guys agree with this, I'll update the wiki pages dealing
> with this.
>
> Does anyone have any other feedback on the incubation related pages:
>
> http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/Incubation
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication
>
> I want to get these locked down so we can get clarity with some of the
> projects that are kind of in a limbo state. I'd really like to vote on the
> incubation definitions in the meeting tomorrow. Feel free to do an absentee
> ballot before then on the mailing list if you won't be able to make the
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Eric Day wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 02:28:04PM -0700, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Joshua McKenty
>>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>>> (650) 283-6846
>>> joshua@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2011-05-31, at 10:15 AM, John Purrier wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> This will not slow the development of the projects and allows logical
>>>> management of the projects to be promoted to "core". In order to make
> this
>>>> happen we will need to lead the DS timelines, as ttx points out, to
> allow
>>>> PTL elections and to involve the new project PTL's in the upcoming DS
>>>> planning.
>>>>
>>>> This timeline should be published as part of the overall project
> lifecycle
>>>> we are developing (inception/affiliated -> incubation -> core project).
>>>> Always recognizing that some projects will stop/hold at specific steps
> in
>>>> the process (not all project should/can progress to incubated or core).
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: openstack-poc-bounces+john=openstack.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:openstack-poc-bounces+john=openstack.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>>> Behalf Of Thierry Carrez
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:35 AM
>>>> To: openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [Openstack-poc] PPB Meeting on June 2nd
>>>>
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I won't be able to make the PPB meeting this Thursday. This is a bank
>>>> holiday over here and we are having people for dinner. If you have the
>>>> meeting without me, just a few remarks about Core projects promotion vs.
>>>> release management.
>>>>
>>>> I think projects shouldn't be promoted to "Core projects" status in the
>>>> middle of a development cycle. The reason is that I need to follow Core
>>>> projects from a release management perspective (plans, milestone
>>>> contents, etc.) and you can't just start doing it in the middle of a
>>>> cycle and pray for a successful coordinated release at the end. They
>>>> need to be Core projects for the whole cycle, so decided before the
>>>> design summit time.
>>>>
>>>> So we can definitely promote projects to Incubation status, at which
>>>> point I'd start educating them on release management requirements to
>>>> make sure they can move to Core status for the next release. And we
>>>> should decide, at least one month before the design summit, that a given
>>>> Incubating project will be a Core project for the E development cycle.
>>>> The corresponding PTLs can then join in time the design summit
>>>> organization committee and the PPB.
>>>>
>>>> But IMHO we shouldn't promote Dashboard, or Burrow, or ScalR to Core
>>>> status for Diablo, since Diablo is already well started.
>>>>
>>>> At that point I'd concentrate our efforts in defining "Incubation" and
>>>> making sure the right projects enter that state ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>>> Release Manager, OpenStack
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>>> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>>> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>