Index ¦ Archives ¦ Atom

TC Report 21

With the advent Thierry's weekly status reports1 on the proposals currently under review by the TC and the optionality of the weekly TC meetings, this report becomes less about meeting minutes and more about reporting on the things that crossed my TC radar that seemed important and/or that seemed like they could do with more input.

This week has no TC meeting. The plan is that discussion will occur either asynchronously in mailing list threads on the "opentack-dev" list or in gerrit reviews in the governance project2 or for casual chats use IRC and the #openstack-dev channel3.

Pending Stuff

The need to talk about postgreSQL

There's ongoing discussion about how to deal with the position of postgreSQL in the attention of the community. There are deployments that use it and the documentation mentions it, but the attention of most developers and all tests is not upon it. It is upon MySQL (and its variants) instead.

There's agreement that this needs to be dealt with, but the degree of change is debated, if not hotly then at least verbosely. An initial review was posted proposing we clear up the document and indicate a path forward that recognized an existing MySQL orientation:

I felt this was too wordy, too MySQL oriented, and left out an important step: agitate with the board. It was easier to explain this in an alternative version resulting in:

Meanwhile discussion had begun (and still continues) in an email thread:

Observing all this, Monty noticed that there is a philosophical chasm that must be bridged before we can truly resolve this issue, so he started yet another thread:

The outcome of that thread and these resolutions is likely to have a fairly significant impact on how we think about managing dependent services in OpenStack. There's a lot to digest behind those links but on the scale of "stuff the TC is doing that will have impact" this is probably one of them.

Draft Vision for the TC

The draft vision for the TC4 got feedback on the review, via survey5 and at the forum6. Effort is now in progress to incorporate that feedback and create something that is easier to comprehend and will make the actual vision more clear. One common bit of feedback was that the document needs a preamble and other structural cues so that people get what it is trying to do. johnthetubaguy, dtroyer and I (cdent) are on the hook for doing this next phase of work. Feel free to contact one of us (or leave a comment on the review, or send some email) if you feel like you have something to add.

Dropped Stuff

A section with reminders of things that were happening or were going to happen then either stopped without resolution or never started in the first place.

OpenStack moving too fast and too slow

A thread was started on this7. It got huge. While there were many subtopics, one of the larger ones was the desire for there to be a long term support release. There were a few different reactions to this, inaccurately paraphrased as:

  • That we have any stable releases at all in the upstream is pretty amazing, some global projects don't bother, it's usually a downstream problem.
  • Great idea, please provide some of the resources required to make it happen, the OpenStack community is not an unlimited supply of free labor.

Then summit happened, people moved on to other things and there wasn't much in the way of resolution. Is there anything we could or should be doing here?

If having LTS is that much of a big deal, then it is something which the Foundation Board of Directors must be convinced is a priority. Early in this process I had suggested we at least write a resolution that repeats (in nicer form) the second bullet point above. We could do that. There's also a new plan to create a top 5 help wanted list8. Doing LTS is probably too big for that, but "stable branch reviews" is not.

© Chris Dent. Built using Pelican. Theme by Giulio Fidente on github.