From 477db3619acd72f8b1afc2a2ad8c3b39f9da3a65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Suereth Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:11:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Propose that we move OTEPs into the specification repository. (#266) --- oteps/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+) create mode 100644 oteps/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md diff --git a/oteps/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md b/oteps/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..997bf501a --- /dev/null +++ b/oteps/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +# Move OTEPS to the Specification repository + +Let's move OTEP documentation and PRs back into the github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification repository. + +## Motivation + +Moving OTEPs back into the specification solves two main issues: + +- Maintaining its tooling infrastructure (currently woefully out of date) +- Bringing it into the existing triage and voting process currently within the + Specification. + +## Explanation + +Originally, OTEPs were kept as a separate repository to keep disjoint/disruptive designs as a separate repository. There are a few differences between a normal PR and an OTEP: + +- OTEPs are expected to be directional and subject to change when actually entered into the specification. +- OTEPs require more approvals than specification PRs +- OTEPs have different PR worklfows (whether due to accidental omission or conscious decision), e.g. staleness checks, linting. + +As OpenTelemetry is stabilizing, the need for OTEPs to live outside the specification is growing less, and we face challenges like: + +- Keeping OTEP tooling up to date +- Advertising the repositories existence + - New contributors to OpenTelemetry often can't find recorded decision that exist in OTEPs. + - Getting reviews from folks used to checking the Specification repository, but not the less-frequently-worked-on OTEP repository. + +To solve these, let's move OTEPs into a directory within the [specification repository](github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification). +We would also update all tooling and expected reviews to match existing standards for OTEPs. Given the maintainers of OTEPs are the same as +maintainers of the specification, this should not change the bar for acceptance. + +## Internal details + +The following changes would occur: + +- The following files would be moved to the specification repo: + - `text/` directory -> `oteps/text/` + - `0000-template.md` -> `oteps/0000-template.md` +- Update the specification `Makefile` to include linting, spell checking, link checking and TOC-ing the oteps directory. +- A one-time cleanup of OTEP markdown upon import to the specification repository. +- Close existing OTEP PRs and ask folks to reopen against the specification repository. +- New labels within the specification repository to tag OTEPs, including automation to set these on PR open. +- Updating contributing guidelines to include a section about OTEPs. +- Add `oteps/README.md` file outlining that OTEPS are not normative and part of enhancement proposal process. +- Add disclaimer to the header of every OTEP that the contents are not normative and part of the enhancement proposal process. + +## Trade-offs and mitigations + +Moving into the specification repository DOES mean that we would have a directory with a different quality bar and, somewhat, process than the rest of the repository. +This can be mitigated through the use of clear, vibrant labels for OTEPS, and updating process guidelines for the specification repository to retain the important +aspects of the current OTEP status. + +## Prior art and alternatives + +OTEPs were originally based on common enhancement proposal processes in other ecosystems, where enhancements live outside core repositories and follow a more rigorous criteria and evaluation. We are finding this +problematic for OpenTelemetry for reasons discussed above. Additionally, unlike many other ecosystems where enhancement/design is kept separate from core code, OpenTelemetry *already* keeps its design separate +form core code via the Specification vs. implementation repositories. Unlike these other OSS projects, our Specification generally requires rigorous discussion, design and prototyping prior to acceptance. Even +after acceptance into the specification, work is still required for improvements to roll out to the ecosystem. Effectively: The OpenTelemetry specification has no such thing as a "small" change: There are only medium changes that appear small, but would be enhancements in other proejcts or large changes that require an OTEP. + +## Open questions + +What are the important portions of the OTEP process to bring over? Have we missed anything in this description? + +## Future possibilities + +In the future, we could figure out how to make OTEPs more searchable, discoverable and highlighted within the opentelemetry.io website. + +Additionally, we can look at extending staleness deadlines for OTEP labeled PRs.