openstack-poc team mailing list archive

[Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry if you mistook my note. I was referring solely to having the PPB
vote *separately* on the API and the project incubation status. I was
saying that the two don't have to be done at the same time...

Apologies for any confusion...

-jay

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Chuck Thier <cthier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While, I'm not on the board any more, I would just like to chime in a bit:
> The proposal for API for block storage was presented both at the design
> summit, and on the mailing list afterwards.  All I received from that was
> good feedback, and enough to continue our effort.  But, before we try to
> offer an official spec for Nova block storage API, we felt it would be best
> to prove the design out a bit first (which is the current stage we are in).
>  Once the code is released, and the API design is a bit more proven, then it
> will be offered up again as a more official spec for Nova block storage.
> If I did not make this clear enough previously, I apologize.
> --
> Chuck
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>