On 11/06/2019 13.55, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote:
Alternatively, I feel like a SIG (be it the Ops Docs SIG or a new "Operational tooling" SIG) would totally be a good idea to revive this. In that case we'd define the repository in [4].
My personal preference would be for a new SIG, but whoever is signing up to work on this should definitely have the final say.
Agreed on having it inside OpenStack namespace, and code handled by a team/SIG/WG (with my preference being a SIG -- existing or not). When this team/SIG/WG retires, the repo would with it. It provides clean ownership, and clear cleanup when disbanding.
Mohammed, is that consensus and actionable? Could you then update https://review.opendev.org/#/c/662300/ to reflect this, please? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@suse.com Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D 90409 Nürnberg GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126