[PowerVMStackers][Winstackers][uc][tc] Encourage to transform from project to SIG
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:41:31AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Tony Breeds wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:22:43PM -0500, Eric Fried wrote:
> > > > core-team sure, but what is it that a PTL does/can do that a SIG chair
> > > > can't?
> > >
> > > Ack patches in other repositories like release, governance, etc.? But
> > > yeah, no reason a SIG chair couldn't also do those things, as long as
> > > the vote is recognized the same way.
> > I can't speak to the TC but I think that a SIG chair would basically be
> > a Liaison in the releases repo and we already know how to handle that.
> So.. switching to my release management hat... that actually brings up an
> interesting point, and a good reason to keep PowerVMStackers and Winstackers
> the same.
> Project teams basically produce "OpenStack" the software release, while SIGs
> work to make "OpenStack" more relevant for specific cases. While SIGs can
> produce code and can own git repositories, we currently have no SIG that
> owns *deliverables* being made part of the regular OpenStack release.
> The release team only tracks project teams, and it's simpler if it stays
> that way. It's also a really good delineation as to what is project team
> territory and what is SIG territory.
> Both PowerVMStackers or WinStackers currently produce deliverables that are
> released under a cycle-based model and are included in the final "OpenStack"
> release. Switching those teams to become SIGs would have an additional
> consequence: it would remove those deliverables from the "OpenStack"
Only *if* those repos don't get 'adopted' by another project.
In the hypothetical example we're looking at:
openstack/nova-powervm would come under the governance of nova (and
therefore still have all the 'rights' of a project) (same with Telemetry
and Neutron). The SIG would be there to maintain consistency across the
3 project teams.
I feel like that's a better outcome but it isn't the actual proposal
we started discussing and I kinda de-railed the conversation ... sorry.
> So unless those teams actually want that, or the TC decides to do that, I
> don't think we should switch those teams to SIGs.
So the original proposal which would be a straight transition doesn't
work for this reason which is good to know
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available