add sustainablity monitoring documents (SCS-0413 and SCS-0414)

[fkr]

These are the foundations for sustainability monitoring in SCS-compliant OpenStack environments. This is part of the work of the ECO:DIGIT project.

[egypcio]

These are the foundations for sustainability monitoring in SCS-compliant OpenStack environments. This is part of the work of the ECO:DIGIT project.

✅

[depressiveRobot]

Nice to see the results of the ECO:DIGIT project added to SCS :)

During my first read, I commented on smaller spelling errors that I noticed.

Do I misunderstand it or does the PR needs to be split into two as "pull request for the proposal MUST add exactly one SCS document of any type" according to scs-0001-v1?

[fkr]

Do I misunderstand it or does the PR needs to be split into two as "pull request for the proposal MUST add exactly one SCS document of any type" according to scs-0001-v1?

mmmh. Indeed. We oriented ourselves at the Decision Record and Data types documents from the metering (0410, 0411 and 0412). I can split this in two PRs - however these documents do go hand in hand.

[fkr]

During my first read, I commented on smaller spelling errors that I noticed.

thanks!

[mbuechse]

Technically, we would need two PRs, but I think if no one in the SIG Std/Cert objects, we can make an exception.

[fkr]

As @mbuechse suggested, this was discussed in today's SIG Std/Crt:

It was decided in the SIG Std/Crt on June 4th that it is OK to leave this in one PR.

[depressiveRobot]

We discussed and decided in today's SIG Std/Cert to keep one PR.

[mbuechse]

I am not competent to speak on the subject matter, but from my understanding these documents can be added as drafts right away, because they reflect an implementation that has been proven to work, and (prima facie) they are well written.

[mbuechse]

Of course, the DCO problem has to be resolved.

[fkr]

Of course, the DCO problem has to be resolved.

Indeed. I don't really understand what is going on here:

"Summary
Commit sha: 0741951, Author: Vinícius Zavam, Committer: Felix Kronlage-Dammers; Expected "Vinícius Zavam zavam@osb-alliance.com", but got "vinícius 651124+egypcio@users.noreply.github.com"."

I'm tempted to override it, because it did carry a sign-off. this was an edit through the web ui apparently.

@mbuechse OK if I set it to pass?

[mbuechse]

@fkr yes, Github wants the correct e-mail address to make sure it's not a spoof or mistake. I agree that most likely Vinicius used the UI, which makes it impossible to select the correct address (the reason why I don't use it, sadly). I suppose you as the eco:digit manager can vouch for the legitimacy here. So yes, you can set it to pass.

[fkr]

@fkr yes, Github wants the correct e-mail address to make sure it's not a spoof or mistake. I agree that most likely Vinicius used the UI, which makes it impossible to select the correct address (the reason why I don't use it, sadly). I suppose you as the eco:digit manager can vouch for the legitimacy here. So yes, you can set it to pass.

alright. The 'Set to pass' is being reset everytime I update the PR with a rebase, so I'll wait with flipping this right before merging.

[fkr]

From my perspective this can be merged now. The documents are in Draft state, so nothing is set in stone by merging them.
Nevertheless, I will wait till early next week to get at least one other approval aside from @mbuechse (@egypcio is part of the team that authored this).