517390c66b
As discussed in Victoria PTG, adding more clarification on project retirement process on 1. Force merge the work required for completing the retirement. 2. how to continue development as non official project. -https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-victoria-ptg Change-Id: Ia88f916ccc559636744959a373596eb8f29f0c86
106 lines
4.6 KiB
ReStructuredText
106 lines
4.6 KiB
ReStructuredText
=================================================================
|
|
Guidelines for dropping project teams from OpenStack governance
|
|
=================================================================
|
|
|
|
Dropping project teams is hard. There is no reason to remove low-activity
|
|
but functional teams. And there are teams that cannot be dropped, even if
|
|
dysfunctional. Here is a set of guidelines to help with that process.
|
|
|
|
Triggers
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
Triggers are events which may trigger an inquiry on the opportunity of
|
|
dropping a specific project team. They are generally a sign that the team
|
|
is struggling to continue to be part of the OpenStack release cycle
|
|
requirements.
|
|
|
|
- No PTL candidate during a PTL renewal
|
|
|
|
This is generally a signal that there aren't enough people maintaining
|
|
the project, or at least nobody willing to engage to be the default
|
|
contact point and ambassador for a project. Alternatively, it may signal
|
|
that the team is out of touch with the mailing-list and the release cycle
|
|
and misses the window for self-nomination.
|
|
|
|
- Missing RC1 signoff or triggering forced releases
|
|
|
|
The release management team expects some confirmation from the PTL or
|
|
their release liaison at critical points in the release cycle. In case
|
|
such signoffs are not provided, the release management team forces
|
|
releases, at the risk of producing non-functional deliverables. This is
|
|
obviously not sustainable and a good sign of a dysfunctional project team.
|
|
|
|
- Failure to communicate with community goal champions
|
|
|
|
We set common goals at each cycle that bring more value if all project
|
|
teams and OpenStack deliverables complete them. In some corner cases,
|
|
teams are unable to complete the goal, and should communicate why to
|
|
the goal champion(s). It is also expected that changes pushed by the
|
|
goal champion(s) in support of the goal get reviewed in a reasonable
|
|
timeframe. Failure to communicate at all with the goal champion(s)
|
|
signals a dysfunctional team.
|
|
|
|
Criteria
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
Triggers alone are not a reason for removal. They just trigger an inquiry,
|
|
which may result in proposing their removal, or actively looking for new
|
|
volunteers to take over the project and/or adding the team to the
|
|
:doc:`upstream-investment-opportunities/index`.
|
|
|
|
The criteria to evaluate how "critical" a project is is based on:
|
|
|
|
- Usage
|
|
|
|
If the user survey shows that the project is used in more than 5% of the
|
|
deployments, it is necessary to continue the project to support those
|
|
existing users that have invested in that technology, or at least provide
|
|
a clear migration path to some alternative solution.
|
|
|
|
- Dependency
|
|
|
|
If the project is a dependency of other projects, it should also be
|
|
continued in order to support that other project team. For example, we
|
|
could not ever consider dropping Glance, as Nova depends on it.
|
|
Dependencies are documented in the OpenStack Map (osf/openstack-map
|
|
repository).
|
|
|
|
Process
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
Whenever a project generates one of the triggers, TC members may raise an
|
|
inquiry. If the project is deemed critical, the TC should raise a public
|
|
call for help and report to the Board to encourage more engagement in this
|
|
area. However if the project is not deemed critical, calling for help can
|
|
be counter-productive: it is very likely that a volunteer will step up to
|
|
"save" the project, when that volunteer's energy could be better spent on
|
|
more critical things. Therefore the TC should just start a thread about
|
|
removing that project team from governance and future releases of OpenStack.
|
|
|
|
If project's existing or new team shows interest to continue the development under:
|
|
|
|
- OpenStack governance then they need to update the TC on ML thread or IRC channel
|
|
before retirement is approved.
|
|
|
|
- OpenDev, please refer to the `Continue Development`_ section.
|
|
|
|
Once retirement is approved, the Technical Committee's decision overrides any objections
|
|
of the project's contributors, so may involve deleting blocking votes on retirement changes.
|
|
Any interested team members may continue the development as non-official OpenStack project.
|
|
|
|
Continue Development
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
With the OpenDev model, it is possible for the project to continue the development
|
|
under different namespace than `openstack/`. Refer to the resolution
|
|
:doc:`../resolutions/20190322-namespace-unofficial-projects`. for OpenStack namespace criteria.
|
|
|
|
Refer to `this document <https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/infra-manual/latest/creators.html>`_
|
|
for the complete process to create the project under OpenDev.
|
|
|
|
Re-becoming Official OpenStack Project
|
|
======================================
|
|
|
|
Becoming an official OpenStack project again requires following the same criteria
|
|
as :doc:`new-projects-requirements`.
|