)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":308,"name":"Thierry Carrez","email":"thierry@openstack.org","username":"ttx"},"change_message_id":"408cfe31f3ffe3ab8dbfad461d1c29a4ba110163","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5a4b8651_b7124164","updated":"2022-03-22 13:45:29.000000000","message":"From a release perspective, there are basically three possibilities for deliverables produced by a given project team:\n1- Included in \"the release\" (listed on release pages, managed by release management etc.)\n2- Tagged but not included in \"the release\" (started producing artifacts but not really \"ready\", or added deliverables past the release membership freeze)\n3- Not even tagged yet\n\nWe have been using \"tech preview\" in the past to describe cases (2) or (3) -- when a project team has joined OpenStack governance but has not technically made it to \"the release\".","commit_id":"50102777a64fee32c64979281dbbbd367f09e85f"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"1eaa15981dcb794a90eaa6586ee48e11724624ed","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"580e9297_9bae8055","updated":"2022-03-17 23:01:46.000000000","message":"Thanks, Kendal for starting it.\n\nI do not think we need resolution here as it does not change the governance part of accepting the new project or remove the in-active projects instead it defines the criteria/way to find such projects and work to make them active/OpenStack-way. If it change the governance of projects then we can add resolution but I do not see that is discussed or proposed in this commit. \n\nAt least IMO we should work on a tech-preview framework instead of writing resolution. \n\nAs discussed in PTG, it is not just from the new project like skyline but applicable for existing projects also which goes the in-active or in-healthy state. We need to work on tech-preview framework where we can define what is it, what we will check/monitor if any project in tech-preview, how to communicate it, what is the entry and exit criteria etc.","commit_id":"50102777a64fee32c64979281dbbbd367f09e85f"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"8d4906025e229e9a3a43d40756c7d19ae0da31e6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"11482a1b_19c2e66a","in_reply_to":"580e9297_9bae8055","updated":"2022-03-22 11:32:28.000000000","message":"I agree with Ghanshyam here - the returning project which comes to my mind immediately is neutron-fwaas which we \"revived\" recently in the Neutron stadium. IMO such tech-preview status for that project would be very good for now, until it would be considered fully supported by community again.","commit_id":"50102777a64fee32c64979281dbbbd367f09e85f"},{"author":{"_account_id":16708,"name":"Kendall Nelson","display_name":"Kendall (diablo_rojo)","email":"kennelson11@gmail.com","username":"kjnelson"},"change_message_id":"03c82995121caa7cfdafe82d6548d0298aef28fe","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"e5ee1890_6cd3fe3f","updated":"2022-04-26 05:27:40.000000000","message":"I updated the patch with the comments. \n\nI think its good to have the resolution at least until we have an actual process for listing out projects that need this status- at that point I can abandon the patch if we want. \n\nI would have said that we could have used the tagging framework for this, but since that was dropped I guess we want to do something else. I would vote keeping it as lightweight as possible?\n\n","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"af3903d1e86b6084324ab6b2ce31a4329fa2d3df","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"426f794a_5edbd84b","updated":"2022-05-26 15:34:22.000000000","message":"doing it in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/839880","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"4bf0b8045f10d0396693699ff64e22c2437be9bb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"0d39f025_47e43698","updated":"2022-04-26 17:22:49.000000000","message":"replied inline on why we should not require the resolution for this. This is TC internal process and does not change any governance state. If we want to tag project with some status then we need to re-think on why not to do it with different level of governance like \u0027sandbox\u0027, \u0027graduate\u0027, \u0027incubation\u0027 etc. And that we already discussed in Yoga PTG that we do not want to do that.\n- https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-ptg#L264\n\nI think instead of resoltuion which actually does not help anything here, we should just add framework and start working on it.","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"}],"resolutions/20220317-tech-preview.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":15993,"name":"Amy Marrich","display_name":"Amy Marrich (spotz)","email":"amy@demarco.com","username":"amarrich"},"change_message_id":"6a5859b9bdcf6638142489e9ef21e2c8d7ea7d9f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":2,"context_line":"2022-03-17 Tech Preview Definition for New Projects"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":""},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"In an effort to be inculsive of new projects interested in joining OpenStack that"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"may not be quite ready for production but want to be a part of the release, we"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"are creating this idea of a \u0027tech preview\u0027 to help make users and operators"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":"aware of the status."},{"line_number":9,"context_line":""},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"Background"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"----------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"55a045ad_159d5b11","line":8,"range":{"start_line":5,"start_character":0,"end_line":8,"end_character":20},"updated":"2022-03-24 15:34:09.000000000","message":"In an effort to be inclusive of new projects interested in joining OpenStack, we are adding the concept of \u0027tech preview\u0027. This would help to make users and operators aware of the status of projects where are not ready to be run in production.","commit_id":"50102777a64fee32c64979281dbbbd367f09e85f"},{"author":{"_account_id":15993,"name":"Amy Marrich","display_name":"Amy Marrich (spotz)","email":"amy@demarco.com","username":"amarrich"},"change_message_id":"6a5859b9bdcf6638142489e9ef21e2c8d7ea7d9f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"Background"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"----------"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"This comes from a decision to accept Skyline but recognizing its not quite"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"where it needs to be yet to be a fully fledged OpenStack project. In order"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"to grow the team within OpenStack, we needed to accept them into the OpenStack"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"space, but there was more work to be done before they could be considered"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"053da5ce_6bc4cc3f","line":13,"range":{"start_line":13,"start_character":61,"end_line":13,"end_character":64},"updated":"2022-03-24 15:34:09.000000000","message":"that it\u0027s","commit_id":"50102777a64fee32c64979281dbbbd367f09e85f"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"5d061052469c2a5440a7f94b5a47c49b2353f918","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"--------------"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"\u003cI dont think we actually decided this looking over our notes from the PTG.\u003e"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"References"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"9c9c1456_8137051a","line":24,"updated":"2022-04-26 06:54:02.000000000","message":"Regarding implementation I was thinking that maybe we can use \"release-management\" variable in projects.yaml file: https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/openstack_governance/projects_schema.yaml#L107\nCurrently it can be \"none\", \"deprecated\", \"external\" but we can extend it to include also something like \"techpreview\". Wdyt about it?","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"9467fc97ddb198b15e35f85365e1e96a0762795c","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"--------------"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"\u003cI dont think we actually decided this looking over our notes from the PTG.\u003e"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"References"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"af1335b0_56d00e29","line":24,"in_reply_to":"70b24cb2_c91c84d2","updated":"2022-04-29 08:57:03.000000000","message":"Ack: I proposed something initial for discussion: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/839880\nPlease let me know if that is more or less good start :)","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"4bf0b8045f10d0396693699ff64e22c2437be9bb","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":21,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"--------------"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"\u003cI dont think we actually decided this looking over our notes from the PTG.\u003e"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"References"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"70b24cb2_c91c84d2","line":24,"in_reply_to":"9c9c1456_8137051a","updated":"2022-04-26 17:22:49.000000000","message":"release things/input is one of the criteria to enter in tech-preview. It can be other stats, gate health, goal, QA, infra mandatory work etc.\n\nI do not think we agreed on the tagging projects with new status which is kind of similar of adding differnt level in governance like \u0027sandbox\u0027, \u0027graduate\u0027 or incubated, integrated etc. That is why I am saying we do not resolution here as it does not change the state of governance instead we can start working on actual framework.\n\nIMO, we just add a framework defining the entry, exit, and timeline criteria of any project to be in tech-preview state. TC maintain that list in reference document only and work on them to become active again. and if no progress on any project in tech-preview for defined timeline we start the retirement. I am saying tech-preview can be just a internal process for TC to list/work such project and then either help them to be active or retire.","commit_id":"aed4071699b62a1486c2340d12cda5506a73063f"}]}