Open Stack

Thanks for the explanation and that makes sense.  Appreciate the help and have a great weekend! 




> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Rochelle Grober <rochelle.grober at huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll be workin on and submitting theatch today, but I wanted to expand a bit on why openstack/openstack-userstories.  This is the repository *path*, not just the repository.  So the first openstack is the domain -- I.e. Openstack vs stack forge vs openstack-infra vs openstack-dev.  The repository itself would be "openstack-userstories."  Now, wen the telco wg  moves their repository from stack forge, it will be "openstack/telcowg-usecases."  If they decide they want to rename it to userstories, then we would have to repos with userstories in the name.  This is why Doug Hellmann, and likely the TC, would prefer the openstack prequalifier --to identify this as the location for userstories that apply across all of OpenStack.
> 
> I'll work on the patch as the discussion continues :-)
> 
> --rocky
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 08:22, Shamail Tahir <itzshamail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Rocky,
>> 
>> Can you please submit the new patch before the next TC meeting and see if
>> we can get on the agenda again?  Also, let's use user-stories as the repo
>> name if that is possible.  Openstack/openstack-user-stories seems a bit
>> long/redundant and openstack/user-stories would only contain OpenStack
>> once...  Does everyone agree with the change?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Shamail
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Barrett, Carol L <
>> carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Rocky - It looks like we're good to go. Can you modify the user committee
>>> file as a patch to include our repo?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Carol
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 12:17 AM
>>> To: Tom Fifield; user-committee at lists.openstack.org; Allamaraju, Subbu;
>>> Jon Proulux
>>> Subject: Re: [User-committee] Approval/support for Product WG to be a
>>> project under User Committee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would be in favour of the approach as outlined (with Tom's comment
>>> included)
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
>>>> Sent: 07 July 2015 06:49
>>>> To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org; Tim Bell; Allamaraju, Subbu;
>>>> Jon Proulux
>>>> Subject: Re: [User-committee] Approval/support for Product WG to be a
>>>> project under User Committee
>>>> 
>>>> This matches what we discussed at the summit.
>>>> 
>>>> Tim/Subbu/Jon, can you give an official nod?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestion for your wording change - use "Working Group" rather than
>>>> "project" to keep in-line with what we've been using so far.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tom
>>>> 
>>>>> On 07/07/15 10:26, Rochelle Grober wrote:
>>>>> Hey, folks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Product Working Group is in the process of trying to get a
>>>>> repository instantiated for User Stories (hopefully at
>>>>> openstack/openstack-user-stories) and in the process of walking
>>>>> through the process, found it would be much simpler to actually form
>>>>> a project that owns the repository.  Once that was realized, it was
>>>>> suggested (thanks Thierry!) that the likely best location for us
>>>>> would be under the auspices of the User Committee.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the committee’s ok, I’d like to modify the current patch commit
>>>>> message, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197754/ to read:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> “The Product Working group would like to be formally recognized as a
>>>>> project within the User Committee governance body.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And would change the file to be modified to be the
>>>>> openstack/governance/reference/user-committee-repos.yaml with the
>>>>> group’s information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you guys think?  The patch is under discussion at tomorrow’s
>>>>> meeting, but if I get a generally positive response from the list, I
>>>>> will be able to at least propose that the current patch be abandoned
>>>>> for one that puts the Product WG under the auspices of the User
>>>> Committee.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rocky Grober (on behalf of the Product Working Group)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> User-committee mailing list
>>>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> User-committee mailing list
>>> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Product-wg mailing list
>>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Shamail Tahir
>> t: @ShamailXD
>> tz: Eastern Time
>> _______________________________________________
>> Product-wg mailing list
>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg