<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Tom,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ll have to ask individuals to come forward to restate this position – many of the cases were 1x1 dialogs or during meetings related to OpenStack. At recent meetings Dell, SUSE, Piston, IBM and DreamHost have all made these statements.
I could name others; however, we really need people to represent their own positions where possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regarding designated sections justification, we are moving that into a Gerrit process to make it easier to track the feedback. Until then, we will have to accept the amount of community documentation generated in the etherpad. I’m happy to entertain suggestions
to delay the process while we collect additional feedback, but those would have to come from you or others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For both Swift and Keystone, we need the PTLs and technical community to create more information for discussion. Since we’re only worried about Havana at this stage, there is time to fill in the blanks for future releases.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Finally, I feel obliged to point out that some people who come to me are afraid to state these positions publicly because they see they the aggressive treatment that is given to people who voice alternate perspectives. You can choose to discount me as a
reporter of these perspectives; however, we need to acknowledge that people will not be willing to speak up until we welcome all views.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Rob<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom@openstack.org]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46 PM<br>
> To: defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Results from Community Meetings ><br>
> discussion/+1 about reconsidering Havana Swift as a core capability<br>
> <br>
> On 12/09/14 04:35, Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com wrote:<br>
> > I have gotten significant and consistent feedback that the two Swift <br>
> > capabilities should not be included in Havana Core. This has come <br>
> > from multiple sources, a variety of interests, and different reasons <br>
> > were given.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hi Rob,<br>
> <br>
> Following up from our discussion during the recent community meeting, <br>
> is this feedback written down anywhere? I cannot find it and would <br>
> suggest that the justifications being shared with the community.<br>
> <br>
> This is also related to the two action items proposed that we both <br>
> agreed were important to fulfil as soon as possible:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Action item: the difference between Havana and Juno that would <br>
> facilitate the change in designated/non-designated swift should be <br>
> specified in some degree of technical detail. (Potentially from Simon<br>
> Anderson)<br>
> <br>
> Action item: the problems with Keystone in Havana should be specified <br>
> in some degree of technical detail<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Tom<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
> Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>