Open Stack

On 03/13/2014 08:45 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> This meeting was a pretty odd experience for me. I'm hoping I did an
> ok job of representing the TC there, but its not clear to me that is
> the case.
> 
> I do think there's a lack of consensus in the TC about if designated
> sections are a good idea at all. I also think Josh sees our job as
> just providing him with a list of things he's asked for without
> discussing whether we think the request makes sense. I found his
> behaviour in the meeting very unhelpful.

Is lack of consensus the right way to describe it?  I don't recall
anyone thinking it *was* a good idea.  Despite that, I felt like our
response was reasonable and productive.  We proposed a specific area
where we could productively collaborate toward a common goal.

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

>> It sounds like our response is being interpreted as an inability on our
>> part to come to any consensus, which is not my read at all of our
>> conversation on this. The "we are unlikely to reach a consensus"
>> statement IMHO is about the length of time it would take to do this
>> across all projects, rather than the difficulty in coming to agreement
>> on it.
>>
>> My own intent on this was simply "what you're asking of us is hugely
>> complex and we'd rather focus our time and effort on helping solidifying
>> the API interop requirements rather than complex definitions of what
>> code is required to be run".
>>
>> Anyone see this differently?

No, I think you've described it exactly.  That was my intent, as well.

-- 
Russell Bryant