<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougwig@parksidesoftware.com" target="_blank">dougwig@parksidesoftware.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"><br>
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rbryant@redhat.com">rbryant@redhat.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply<br>
>>>> 'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron,<br>
>>> because<br>
>>>> they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or<br>
>> another (e.g.<br>
>>>> having 3rd-party, extending-api,<br>
>> integrating-via-plugin-model,<br>
>>>> etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the<br>
>>> projects.yaml<br>
>>>> to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any<br>
>> other project)<br>
>>>> once we defined its ontology.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thoughts?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> That seems interesting, but given the communities stated<br>
>> goals<br>
>>>> around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not,<br>
>> adding<br>
>>>> these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger<br>
>> OpenStack Bigger<br>
>>>> Tent, would be a good thing.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>> Kyle<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should<br>
>>> stress the<br>
>>>> fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home<br>
>> for these<br>
>>>> projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems<br>
>> like<br>
>>> we're<br>
>>>> still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a<br>
>> point where<br>
>>>> the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us<br>
>>> make a<br>
>>>> more informed decision compared to the one we can make right<br>
>> now.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and<br>
>> would help<br>
>>> make you feel more informed?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project<br>
>> belongs or<br>
>>> doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however we end<br>
>>> up calling it :)<br>
>><br>
>> OK, that's fine. Figuring that out is the next step if folks agree with<br>
>> Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos. I'm happy to write up a<br>
>> strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations<br>
>> around responsibilities and communication.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow<br>
>> the networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention be one<br>
>> of the criteria? I look forward to your proposal.<br>
><br>
> Good question. I think consistency is good, especially when there are<br>
> so many of them. It helps make it clear that they're all following some<br>
> sort of pattern. Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if needed.<br>
<br>
</div></div>There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
doug<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this mean we've built consensus on the "yes, it makes sense for these to live under Neutron" argument?<br><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Kyle<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
><br>
> --<br>
> Russell Bryant<br>
><br>
> __________________________________________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
> Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>