2014-12-02 OpenStack project structure reform specification¶
Our project structure is currently organized as a ladder. Developers form teams, work on a project, then apply for incubation and ultimately graduate to be part of the OpenStack integrated release. Only integrated projects (and the few horizontal efforts necessary to build them) are recognized officially as “OpenStack” efforts. This creates a number of issues, which were particularly visible at the Technical Committee level over the Juno development cycle.
First, the integrated release as it stands today is not a useful product for our users. The current collection of services in the integrated release spans from cloud native APIs (swift, zaqar in incubation), base-level IaaS blocks (nova, glance, cinder), high-level aaS (savana, trove), and lots of things that span domains. Some projects (swift, ironic...) can be used quite well outside of the rest of the OpenStack stack, while others (glance, nova) really don’t function in a different context. Skilled operators aren’t deploying “the integrated release”: they are picking and choosing between components they feel are useful. New users, however, are presented with a complex and scary “integrated release” as the thing they have to deploy and manage: this inhibits adoption, and this inhibits the adoption of a slice of OpenStack that could serve their need.
Second, the integrated release being the only and ultimate goal for projects, there is no lack of candidates, and the list is always-growing. Why reject Sahara if you accepted Trove? However, processes and services are applied equally to all members of the integrated release: we gate everything in the integrated release against everything else, we do a common, time-based release every 6 months, we produce documentation for all the integrated release components, etc. The resources working on those integrated horizontal tasks are very finite, and complexity grows non-linearly as we add more projects. So there is outside pressure to add more projects, and internal pressure to resist further additions.
Third, the binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. “Non-official” projects are second- or third-class citizens which can’t get development resources. Alternative solutions can’t emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.
In summary, the “integrated release” is paradoxically too large to be effectively integrated, installed or upgraded in one piece, and too small to express the diversity of our rich ecosystem. Its slow-moving, binary nature is too granular to represent the complexity of what our community produces, and therefore we need to reform it.
The challenge is to find a solution which allows to address all those three issues. Embrace the diversity of our ecosystem while making sure that what we produce is easily understandable and consumable by our downstream users (distributions, deployers, end users), all that without putting more stress on the already overworked horizontal teams providing services to all OpenStack projects, and without limiting the current teams access to common finite resources.
Recognize all our community is a part of OpenStack¶
The second part of the change is recognizing that there is more to “OpenStack” than a finite set of projects blessed by the Technical Committee. We already have plenty of projects that are developed on OpenStack infrastructure, follow the OpenStack way of doing things, have development discussions on the openstack-dev mailing-list and use #openstack-meeting channels for their team meetings. Those are part of the OpenStack community as well, and we propose that those should considered “OpenStack projects” (and be hosted under openstack git namespaces), as long as they meet an objective criteria for inclusion (to be developed as one of the work items below). This might include items such as:
- They align with the OpenStack Mission: the project should help further the OpenStack mission, by providing a cloud infrastructure service, or directly building on an existing OpenStack infrastructure service
- They follow the OpenStack way: open source (licensing), open community (leadership chosen by the contributors to the project), open development (public reviews on Gerrit, core reviewers, gate, assigned liaisons), and open design (direction discussed at Design Summit and/or on public forums)
- They ensure basic interoperability (API services should support at least Keystone)
- They submit to the OpenStack Technical Committee oversight
These criteria are objective, and therefore the Technical Committee may delegate processing applications to another team. However, the TC would still vote to approve or reject applications itself, based on the recommendations and input of any delegates, but without being bound to that advice. The TC may also decide to encourage collaboration between similar projects (to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort), or to remove dead projects.
This proposed structure will replace the current program-driven structure. We’ll still track which team owns which git repository, but this will let multiple different “OpenStack” teams potentially address the same problem space. Contributors to projects in the OpenStack git namespace will all be considered ATCs and participate in electing the Technical Committee.
As for all significant governance changes, we need to ensure a seamless transition and reduce the effect of the reform on the current development cycle. To ensure this seamless transition, the OpenStack taxonomy will initially define one tag, “integrated-release”, which will contain the integrated projects for the Kilo cycle. To minimize disruption, this tag will be used throughout the Kilo development cycle and for the Kilo end release. This tag may be split, replaced or redefined in the future, but that will be discussed as separate changes.
These proposed changes are just the base foundational step, enabling the future evolution of our project structure and governance. It puts in place the framework that will be used to discuss future changes (new tags and the rules to apply them).
The work on this transition is assigned to the Technical Committee members, under the coordination of the Chair of the Technical Committee.
- Communication about the changes and their impact to the wider OpenStack community (end of December, start of January, ttx)
- Create project taxonomy base structure and templates in governance repository (mid-January, ttx)
- Replace incubation-integration-requirements.rst by rules definition for the “integrated-release” transitional tag (end of January, assignee tbd)
- Create base taxonomy navigation website, to make the taxonomy easily discoverable, searchable and browseable (kilo-2 milestone, jaypipes)
- Define new objective OpenStack project requirements (to replace old new-programs-requirements.rst) (kilo-2 milestone, assignee tbd)
- Update Technical Committee charter to get rid of the “Programs” concept (and redefine ATC as contributors to any OpenStack project) (kilo-2 milestone, ttx)
Most of those work items will result in governance changes that will be discussed, reviewed and approved by the Technical Committee separately.
Impact for horizontal teams¶
Horizontal teams (documentation, infrastructure, QA, release management, stable maintenance, vulnerability management, translators...) have set a number of expectations toward the projects in the “integrated release”. This is what created tension as the Technical Committee added more projects which those horizontal teams had to support. Those expectations have to be revisited as we replace the “integrated release” with a richer landscape.
With this proposed change, the work of horizontal teams shall gradually move away from centrally handling work for all projects, to a more decentralized model where they provide processes and tools to empower projects to do the work themselves. The horizontal teams become responsible for passing along the knowledge, tools and processes to the projects in order to produce quality artifacts, rather than being the direct producers of those artifacts.
Each horizontal team will have to redefine how they organize their work under the new project structure, and which (if any) projects they still directly handle. They will be able to define tags to communicate that new organization. Note that most teams already started that transition as more projects were being added to the integrated release, so this will help them to more explicitly describe the service they provide.
Impact for existing integrated projects and the Kilo cycle¶
This change in itself doesn’t adversely impact existing integrated projects: they will continue to exist and be defined under the transitional “integrated-release” tag. However, one end goal of the reform is to deconstruct the “integrated release” binary concept and replace it with more precise and objective groupings, so there should come a time in the future where the “integrated-release” concept won’t mean anything anymore, and the transitional tag will be discontinued. This change puts in place the framework that will allow us to do that, but doesn’t actually do anything yet. In particular, the “integrated release” as a concept will still very much exist at least until the end of the Kilo development cycle.
Impact for currently-incubated projects¶
Currently-incubated projects would directly become “OpenStack projects” under the new structure, without needing another formal application. Future tags will be defined and applied to them to further describe their nature and maturity status.
The OpenStack Foundation legal staff currently performs trademark checks as a project is incubated, before its inclusion in the integrated release. It will continue to apply the same preventive analysis to any project that will be used as part of OpenStack Foundation trademark license programs. However projects under the openstack git namespaces are considered projects from the OpenStack Community, and won’t all be preventively checked for potential trademark conflicts. To communicate that, a note will be posted on the relevant git organization pages stating that the OpenStack Foundation is not responsible for the project names or content below, which are posted by independent developers.
The Technical Committee however expects that if a reasonable challenge is presented to a given project under an openstack git namespace, a rename of the project has to be considered.
- Original mailing-list discussion: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041929.html
- “OpenStack as Layers” https://dague.net/2014/08/26/openstack-as-layers/ (Sean Dague)
- “OpenStack as Layers but also a Big Tents but also a bunch of Cats” http://inaugust.com/post/108 (Monty Taylor)
- “The problem space in the big tent” http://ttx.re/problem-space-in-the-big-tent.html (Thierry Carrez)
- “So, What is the Core of OpenStack?” http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/so-what-is-the-core-of-openstack/ (Jay Pipes)
- “On Layers” http://www.stillhq.com/openstack/kilo/000002.html (Mikal Still)
- Strawman governance change proposals:
- Doug’s strawman v1: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:big-tent,n,z
- Doug’s strawman v2: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/131422/
- Jay’s strawman: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126582/
- Public notes from discussions between TC members: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/project-restructure-hangouts