[Vote ended on 2022-03-16] To include community.sap collection in the Ansible package

[Andersson007]

Summary

community.sap and nautobot are ready for inclusion in the Ansible package, see the related discussions:

• nautobot discussion
• community.sap

The first reviews by Tadej haven't been finished (I've pinged him twice and got no response) but I reviewed the collections and can confirm that all things from Tadej's reviews were fixed.

I suggest including them next Monday March 07, 2022 automatically because it has been reviewed twice (as described in ansible/community-docs#51, which is not merged yet but there have been no objections about it so far) provided that there are no critical obstacles. So no vote is needed.

If you have any objections, please say.

UPDATED because of #74 (comment): ok, let's vote
UPDATED nautobot needs some fixes, so i'll create a separate topic later

[felixfontein]

So far we always voted on any inclusion (no matter how many positive reviews they had), I think we should also do that here.

[Andersson007]

So far we always voted on any inclusion (no matter how many positive reviews they had), I think we should also do that here.

OK:) let's vote then

+1

[felixfontein]

I've adjusted the end date to 2022-03-16, so it's +14 days from now instead some weeks in the past :)

[felixfontein]

+1 on including community.sap. The nautobot collection needs some minor adjustments first IMO.

[markuman]

+1

[Andersson007]

I'll change the title and the description for community.sap only, so that we can ask the committee to vote today

[ssbarnea]

-1 On this one, basically because I do not like the kitchen-sink status of community package and I do not find SAP as being generic enough to get in. What is the downside of using galaxy to install it?

[Andersson007]

-1 On this one, basically because I do not like the kitchen-sink status of community package and I do not find SAP as being generic enough to get in. What is the downside of using galaxy to install it?

I think it's worth discussing this more broadly in a separate topic as, imo, there's no downside of using galaxy with any new collection and whether we wanna continue to ship a kitchen-sink.
I'll create the topic soon, thanks for bringing this up!

As there's no requirement to be generic in the inclusion requirements for collections at the moment, i suggest proceeding with the inclusion of community.sap.

Who hasn't voted yet, please vote as today is a deadline

[gundalow]

+1 to inclusion
Though I agree with @ssbarnea and @Andersson007, we need to have a separate discussion about the future of the ansible package, and what we want from it long term.

[briantist]

+1 to inclusion

---

I also think that the question of whether to continue a kitchen-sink package is a broad and very separate question, and as it relates to "genericism" that's tricky to nail down. The inclusion criteria right now I think are fairly objective, which is a good thing; if we want to introduce subjectivity into the inclusion process, it needs to be made part of inclusion criteria and we should probably figure out how to decide the subjective items before we make maintainers jump through objective hoops that won't matter anyway.

This also brings up the question of why we vote if the inclusion criteria are objective; what's the purpose of being able to dissent after a long process of meeting those criteria rather than early on in the process?

[Andersson007]

This also brings up the question of why we vote if the inclusion criteria are objective; what's the purpose of being able to dissent after a long process of meeting those criteria rather than early on in the process?

the process suggested in ansible/community-docs#49 will fix this:)

[acozine]

+1 to inclusion.

I agree that the kitchen sink gets bigger and bigger, but I also want to be consistent in our criteria, and it seems unfair to say no to SAP when they've met our stated requirements and we've said yes to other collections with similar (or smaller) breadth of use.

I also agree that it's time to have a conversation about what we want the Ansible package to look like for the future - is it important to make it smaller? If we agree that it is, I think all collections should be reconsidered, rather than keeping collections just because they made it in before a certain date / under the old rules.

[jillr]

+1 to inclusion of community.sap

[jamescassell]

+1

[Andersson007]

Vote has ended:
SC 8 for inclusion
SC 1 against

[felixfontein]

I agree, 8 SC votes for inclusion of community.sap, one SC vote against, no other votes.

[Andersson007]

Included. Thanks everyone! Thanks @rainerleber for the new collection!