<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
On 02/06/2014 08:47 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dina Belova wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Perhaps we should start putting each project on the TC agenda for a<br>
review of its current standing. For any gaps, I think we should set a<br>
specific timeframe for when we expect these gaps to be filled.<br>
<br>
<br>
Really good idea. New requirements are great, but frankly speaking not<br>
all currently integrated projects fit all of them.<br>
Will be nice to find out all gaps there and fix them asap.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed. I propose we do this in future TC meetings, time permitting. I<br>
propose we start with projects where the PTL was also elected to the TC,<br>
so that we give this new review's process some mileage.<br>
<br>
So.. Nova, Cinder, Neutron ?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sounds good to me. How about we do them in the order you specified.<br>
<br>
I'll go ahead and put together a wiki page that discusses the state of<br>
Nova against the requirements to help the review along. John and Mark,<br>
do you think you could do the same for Cinder/Neutron at some point in<br>
the next couple weeks?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yep. I have some time to put together a wiki page for this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>mark</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>