<div dir="ltr">I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaypipes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi <<a href="mailto:mb@us.ibm.com" target="_blank">mb@us.ibm.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mb@us.ibm.com" target="_blank">mb@us.<u></u>ibm.com</a>>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Yes, indeed.<br>
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original "Group<br>
Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.<br>
After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three<br>
summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this<br>
thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the<br>
work now?<br>
<br>
I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good<br>
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly<br>
and openly earlier.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs GBP or not.<br>
It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety of other more<br>
important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the summit and it was<br>
clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse. From the demo<br>
it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't at the top<br>
of my priority list.<br>
<br>
For people to be asking to justify the "why" this far into the Juno cycle<br>
when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit really<br>
brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to discuss<br>
technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to pull the rug<br>
out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after such a long<br>
period of development, discussion, and demo.<br>
<br>
Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution after so much<br>
time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling effect on<br>
contributors.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
I don't disagree with you, Paul.<br>
<br>
I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this earlier in the process.<br>
<br>
FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on #openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We agree on some things; disagree on others.<br>
<br>
Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova and Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being directly involved in each other's spec discussions and design conversations.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
-jay<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Kevin Benton</div>
</div>