Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rochelle Grober" <rochelle.grober at huawei.com>
> To: "Shamail Tahir" <itzshamail at gmail.com>
> 
> 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

I don't envisage that we would rename the Telco WG repo to anything that didn't include a telcowg- prefix, hence why I think it would make sense to just call this one openstack/user-stories.

Thanks,

Steve

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Product-wg mailing list
> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
> 

-- 
Steve Gordon, RHCE
Sr. Technical Product Manager,
Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform