64 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
64 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
Adding amrth candidacy for Trove
|
|
|
|
This email is to announce my candidacy for the PTL of Trove for the
|
|
Queens cycle. My candidacy has been formally submitted in[1].
|
|
|
|
I have been the PTL for the Trove project since the Trove release (in
|
|
March 2016). During this time, we've seen significant improvements
|
|
during the Newton and Ocata releases but faced a setback with the
|
|
departure of several companies from the community in the Pike release.
|
|
|
|
Trove faces many of the same challenges faced by projects that are not
|
|
part of the 'core' of OpenStack. Even though the last two user
|
|
surveys[2,3] show that Trove is one of the popular projects that
|
|
people want to adopt, this has not translated into an increase in
|
|
active participation.
|
|
|
|
The challenges facing Trove in the Queens release are broadly to:
|
|
|
|
1. improve active participation and contribution in code reviews and
|
|
stabilize the core reviewer team.
|
|
2. keep up with changes in the rest of OpenStack
|
|
3. stabilize and maintain the existing code base
|
|
|
|
Two important aspects of my candidacy that are worth highlighting
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
The first is that I am in favor of taking a serious look at the
|
|
current Trove architecture and revisiting whether we should
|
|
reimplement the project as a layered platform project that better
|
|
leverages underlying infrastructure (IaaS) projects. A good discussion
|
|
on the mailing list [4] surfaced a number of ideas which I intend to
|
|
discuss in depth at the PTG in Denver with other members of the
|
|
team. The hope is that we can come out of the PTG with a clear action
|
|
plan, and more importantly a commitment from participants to work on
|
|
the project and implement that plan.
|
|
|
|
The second is that at least in the Queens release, and until we can
|
|
get to the point where we have more active participation in the
|
|
project, I intend to place the project in 'maintenance-mode'. A change
|
|
has been proposed in the governance repository[5] to make this
|
|
happen. I expect however that the TC will respect the wishes of
|
|
whoever is elected PTL of the project in this election cycle.
|
|
|
|
I highlight both of these aspects (above) because they are not
|
|
universally accepted. I am aware that at least one other person wishes
|
|
to also run for election to the position of Trove PTL in the Queens
|
|
cycle, and we differ in our views on these two subjects. As I write
|
|
this, he has not yet announced his candidacy, and I will likely be
|
|
submitting this before he does so I will merely note that we differ on
|
|
how to approach the issue of rearchitecting Trove (he would prefer we
|
|
continue down the current path and stabilize/enhance it rather than
|
|
rearchitect it), and does not favor the notion of attaching the
|
|
maintenance-mode tag to the project.
|
|
|
|
While we differ on these two issues, I intend to remain an active
|
|
participant in the project, and support the PTL's lead if I am not
|
|
re-elected.
|
|
|
|
[1] https://review.openstack.org/48962
|
|
[2] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
|
|
[3] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/October2016SurveyReport.pdf
|
|
[4] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/wokk73ecv44ipfjz
|
|
[5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/488947/
|