Open Stack

>
>
>> Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply 'affiliated', ie.
>> with a loose relationship to Neutron, because they use/integrate with
>> Neutron in some form or another (e.g. having 3rd-party, extending-api,
>> integrating-via-plugin-model, etc)? Then we could simply consider extending
>> the projects.yaml to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any other
>> project) once we defined its ontology.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
> That seems interesting, but given the communities stated goals around Big
> Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not, adding these under the
> Neutron tent, inside the larger OpenStack Bigger Tent, would be a good
> thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>

Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should stress the
fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home for these
projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems like we're
still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a point where the
landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us make a more
informed decision compared to the one we can make right now.

Cheers,
Armando
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150422/9d13f96a/attachment.html>