[OpenStack Foundation] establishing channel for optional feedback re: pilot projects

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Mon Mar 18 14:45:55 UTC 2019

Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> writes:

> Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>>> What sorts of input would the board be interested in hearing? Are there
>>> specific questions, or is it more a matter of looking for general
>>> comments?
>> I’d love to have any of the board members chime in on this one, but I’ll also share my perspective. This request is admittedly open-ended since it’s intended to allow for a wide variety of projects to come through the process. If we look at the cases of Kata Containers and Zuul specifically, I could see the TC having some general thoughts (or not) about Kata Containers and potential integration with OpenStack projects or how it fits technically into an open source cloud landscape. For Zuul, I would imagine there might be a more detailed level of opinion or comment that the TC might have given the origin of Zuul and the continued extensive use as part of the OpenStack project development process. Perhaps things like support for the utility of Zuul as a major user, comments on the developer experience of the project.
> Beyond providing technical input to help the Board assess integration 
> and complementarity between technologies, I think that a body like the 
> OpenStack Technical Committee can provide advice in two other areas:
> 1- The TC has practical experience of open collaboration under the "Four 
> opens", and has derived a number of principles from them. It could 
> therefore provide input to help the Board assess how well a pilot 
> project fits the Open collaboration model, or how it seems to diverge 
> from the OpenStack's implementation of the Four Opens.
> 2- OpenStack stands on strong technical best practices (like gating), 
> that helped facilitate open collaboration and high QA levels.
> The TC could also help assess best practices in areas like 
> documentation, internationalization, code review, testing, CI/CD, bug 
> handling, or vulnerability management.
> While members of the Board are without doubt very technical, the Board 
> of Directors as a body is better equipped to evaluate strategic focus or 
> active engagement. It will IMHO benefit from input from others to 
> evaluate open collaboration or technical best practices -- this is where 
> other technical bodies from already-confirmed projects can help.
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

That all makes sense.

As far as the process, I think because of the asynchronous nature of a
lot of what the TC does, it's going to work best to have *something* in
writing to be evaluated. That doesn't necessarily need to be the slide
deck that would be presented to the board, but it could be. And then I
assume the Board and Foundation staff would prefer to have the results
from the TC in some written form as well.

So, maybe if whoever is shepherding the new project coordinates with the
TC chair (or, more likely, someone the chair appoints), we can ensure
that an evaluation happens in a timely manner and doesn't hold up the


More information about the Foundation mailing list