Openstack-Exporter: Urgent Maintenance And Governance

Hey everyone, Jay Faulkner from G-Research Open Source Software (GR-OSS) is here to discuss some critical maintenance issues with the openstack-exporter repository. As a longtime OpenStack contributor, he's keen on ensuring this project thrives, but current limitations are making it tough.

The Current Situation

So, the main problem is that the repository needs some serious love to keep it healthy and moving forward. Adam (@sharpz7) from Jay's team has been putting in a lot of work, but his limited access is creating roadblocks. Specifically, he's finding it hard to make progress in areas like CI (Continuous Integration), release automation, and bringing new maintainers on board. This is where we need to focus to make sure the project keeps humming along. The goal is to streamline these processes to ensure smooth updates and contributions. Think of it as giving the project a well-oiled engine, ready for anything. By improving CI, we ensure that code changes are automatically tested, reducing the risk of introducing bugs. Release automation helps in creating consistent and timely releases, keeping the user base happy. Onboarding new maintainers is crucial for the long-term health of the project, bringing in fresh perspectives and helping to distribute the workload. This is all about setting up a sustainable and thriving environment for openstack-exporter. With these enhancements, the project will be better equipped to handle future challenges and continue to deliver value to the community. It’s a collaborative effort, and we need everyone’s input to make it a success!

Back in July 2025, @niedbalski granted minimal reviewer access to @sharpz7 and @mnaser. Since then, they’ve been the top two contributors. However, @mnaser has moved on to other projects. This leaves the project in a state that's hard to maintain. The core issue revolves around the need for more active maintainers with the right permissions to drive essential improvements. Without these permissions, key tasks like merging code, managing releases, and setting up robust CI pipelines become unnecessarily difficult. This bottleneck not only slows down development but also discourages potential contributors who might see their efforts stalled. The situation highlights the importance of having a clear and responsive governance structure that allows for timely decisions and actions. It’s about empowering the right people to keep the project moving forward efficiently. By addressing these access limitations, we can unlock the full potential of the existing contributors and attract new ones, ensuring the long-term health and vitality of the openstack-exporter project.

The Challenge

G-Research Open Source Software is committed to the success of openstack-exporter. But, the current project setup is making it nearly impossible to achieve that goal. The challenge is to find a way to give the project the administrative support it needs without disrupting the community. It's a balancing act between providing the necessary resources and maintaining the collaborative spirit that makes open-source projects thrive. To move forward, a clear and efficient governance model is essential. This includes defining roles and responsibilities, establishing decision-making processes, and ensuring that active contributors have the necessary permissions to manage the project effectively. This is not just about adding more hands on deck; it’s about empowering the right individuals to steer the ship. By creating a transparent and inclusive environment, we can foster trust and encourage more community members to step up and contribute. The goal is to build a self-sustaining ecosystem where the project can continue to grow and evolve, meeting the needs of its users and adapting to new challenges. It’s a collaborative effort, and everyone’s participation is vital.

Proposed Solutions

Jay sees two possible ways forward:

1. Grant Admin Access

Give admin access to @sharpz7 (Adam), the G-Research organization, and/or Jay himself. With admin privileges, they could work with the community to develop a simple governance model and encourage more community members to become maintainers. This approach focuses on empowering existing contributors and fostering a collaborative environment. The idea is to distribute responsibilities and decision-making power to a wider group of active members, ensuring the project doesn’t rely too heavily on a single individual. By creating a clear and transparent governance structure, the project can attract new contributors and retain existing ones, fostering a sense of ownership and shared responsibility. This includes setting up guidelines for code contributions, establishing a process for reviewing and merging changes, and defining roles and responsibilities for maintainers. The goal is to create a sustainable ecosystem where the project can continue to grow and evolve, driven by the collective efforts of its community members. This approach not only strengthens the project’s resilience but also promotes innovation and ensures it remains relevant and responsive to the needs of its users.

2. Create a New Project

Take the existing code and start a new project, trying to attract the current user base and community. This isn't the preferred option, but it's on the table if necessary. If they go this route, Jay might even try to get the new project under OpenStack governance as an official deliverable. This is a more drastic approach that involves forking the existing project and starting from scratch. While it offers the opportunity to address fundamental issues and implement best practices from the outset, it also carries significant risks. The primary challenge is attracting the existing user base and community to the new project. This requires a clear and compelling vision, effective communication, and a commitment to providing a superior experience. It’s also essential to ensure that the new project is well-maintained, actively developed, and responsive to user feedback. If successful, this approach could result in a more robust and sustainable project that better meets the needs of its users. However, it also involves a significant investment of time and resources, and there’s no guarantee of success. It’s a high-risk, high-reward strategy that should only be considered if other options have been exhausted.

Why Not Fork?

Jay is clear: they don't want to fork the project. They've been working to rebuild the community for months. What they need is a project with practical governance, which means having someone with admin access who is actively involved. The emphasis here is on maintaining continuity and preserving the existing community. Forking a project can often lead to fragmentation and division, which can be detrimental to its long-term health. By focusing on improving the existing project’s governance and empowering active contributors, the goal is to strengthen the community and foster a sense of shared ownership. This approach recognizes the value of the existing codebase, the established user base, and the collective knowledge and experience of the community members. It’s about building on what’s already there and creating a more sustainable and thriving ecosystem. This requires a commitment to collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity, ensuring that everyone has a voice and can contribute to the project’s success. It’s a more challenging path, but it’s also more likely to result in a stronger and more resilient project in the long run.

In summary, the key to a thriving openstack-exporter project lies in effective governance and active maintenance. By addressing the current limitations and empowering the community, we can ensure its continued success.

Thanks, everyone, for your attention to this important matter!

Jay Faulkner Open Source Developer G-Research OSS