Open Stack

On 14/11/13 11:46 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-11-14 05:12:55 -0800:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the
>> openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and
>> November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just
>> off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of
>> them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the
>> definition of what we include in "openstack development".
>>
>> Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists:
>>
>> *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack
>> official projects
>>
>> *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects
>>
>> Non-official "OpenStack-related" projects would get discussed in
>> stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while
>> openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including
>> incubated & integrated projects).
>>
>> That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano
>> (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev.
>> Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos
>> on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier
>> filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in
>> tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists.
>>
>> That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure
>> that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general
>> mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic
>> questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic
>> in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly
>> stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that
>> traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which
>> would be more manageable for everyone.
>>
>
>Allow me an analogy if you will:
>
>Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long
>time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good
>citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with
>open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that
>this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the
>old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also
>feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers
>must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves
>citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at
>every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers.
>
>Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers
>are greeted with a sign. "Newcomers over there->". That part of town is
>unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also
>has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear
>between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become
>full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of
>whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment.
>
>Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation.

I completely agree with this, lets stick to one list.

-Angus

>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev