Open Stack

Mark, Thierry, Vish, Jonathan and Mark,

I've been trying to parse this thread.  I cannot be certain but it appears that you've generally reached the _same positions_ as DefCore.

This thread recovers ground from DefCore discussions that we've had multiple times.  I'm happy to see the conversation and I think it would be productive to discuss them in the DefCore meetings where we openly cover these same issues.

I'm hoping that we the Tuesday IRC meeting will be productive.  We should be prepared for an additional phone meeting as a backup.  While the these meetings work for the TC, the Board has not been as successful with that format.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:25 AM
> To: defcore-committee
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] [OpenStack Foundation] Understanding
> DefCore
>
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Given that the board is the deciding body for that question, but
> > they/we are looking for the widest possible consultation on it, how about:
> >
> > * The Board comes up with a very rough strawman set of "required
> > code" based on its very rough understanding of the technical
> > architecture and the current commercial ecosystem. It could be the
> > Defcore committee delegated to draft this strawman and the
> > "required code" could still be called "designated sections"
> >
> > * The wider community (including the TC and PTLs) is asked to give its
> > input in the form of questions - i.e. "what are we missing?"
> >
> > * The Board openly answers those questions (perhaps DefCore triages
> > and answers the straightforward ones) and those answers effectively
> > determine the final "required code" policy.
>
> I agree that this process would be a lot less backward.
>
> The TC can't be the source for designating "replaceable code": as the
> representation of contributors to the project, it's difficult for us
> to encourage any code replacement. However we recognize that it's
> within the Board power to define trademark programs, and we can
> certainly provide technical comments against a strawman proposal (as
> should the PTLs and the wider community do).
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140630/d03903b9/attachment-0001.html>