Adding a project to oVirt

[Doron Fediuck]

On Tuesday 13 September 2011 18:45:32 Carl Trieloff wrote:
> On 09/13/2011 10:23 AM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 September 2011 17:11:47 Doron Fediuck wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 13 September 2011 11:24:16 Itamar Heim wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: project-planning-bounces at ovirt.org
> >>> [mailto:project-planning-bounces at ovirt.org] On Behalf Of Carl
> >>>> Trieloff
> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 22:30 PM
> >>>> To: project-planning at ovirt.org
> >>>> Subject: Adding a project to oVirt
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> (URL REDACTED - INFO: http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/project-planning/2011-September/000283.html)
> >>>> Anthony, I believe I have your comments worked into this doc, please
> >>>> take a look.
> >>>>
> >>>> Itamar, please review the two project rules.
> >>> Looks ok to me, my concerns are on the rules implied by this, but that's
> >>> on another thread.
> >>> Cc'ing more reviewers
> >>>
> >> The API restriction may be too much.
> >> Assuming engine is RHEV-M, important projects similar to KSM[1]
> >> will not be a part of oVirt, and we may end up loosing important innovations.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure RHEV-M (engine) is fully equivalent to eclipse, and therefore
> >> the API rule may harm us.
> >>
> >> As I see it, either we define oVirt umbrella as an union model (rings around
> >> rhev-m), and acknowledge the fact we'll be loosing projects, or use an eco-environment
> >> for visualization, by restricting the API rule to engin-related project, and
> >> accepting other project which will commit to the other eco-system rule(s).
> >>
> > Sorry for mail my previous typo's (visualization -> virtualization, engin->engine, etc).
> >
> > One more thing I left out;
> > What I'm missing in this document is a review process to a new project.
> > IE- Do we accept any new project or do we have some minimal 'due diligence'
> > of the project. 
> >
> > For example;
> > - Who owns it?
> > - Is there some commitment behind it, or is it a 'one man show'? 
> > - Does is have a malicious potential?
> >
> > These are all examples I hope we won't need to face.
> > I think it should be considered and added into the document, if you feel the same.
> >
> 
> I've added this
> 
> In addition the board my vote to include additional projects that are
> complementary to the oVirt eco-system on a case by case basis.
> 
> Carl.
> 
> 
ACK with the following minor fix:
my=> may

-- 

/d

"Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?"