Should we forward this on to the board? From: Van Lindberg <van.lindberg at rackspace.com<mailto:van.lindberg at rackspace.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 1:51 PM To: "defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>" <defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>> Cc: Egle Sigler <egle.sigler at rackspace.com<mailto:egle.sigler at rackspace.com>>, Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com<mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com>> Subject: [OpenStack-DefCore] Draft 2015.03 Spec Hello all Per the discussion today and at the face to face meeting last week, we have the following draft 2015.03 spec for comments and approval: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/defcore-draft-spec-2015.03 Notes: - There are two advisory sections: auth-token (which we created a placeholder for) and compute-servers-metadata (which didn't exist in havanacore, but was in icehousecore). Because the point of this doc is "havanacore - anything possibly troublesome," we suggested moving compute-servers-metadata to advisory for action in 2015.04. - This is .rst formatted and designed for human consumption. There is a linked (and also authoritative) .json file for machine consumption. - The .json file (draft in gdoc for easy multi-editing right now) has everything that is not mandatory or advisory removed. - We updated the versioning of the .json file (to 1.1), removed "status" from the top-level, and added "advisory" flags for those two items that were advisory. We also updated "core" to false for the two advisory items. - We need designated sections for keystone. Thanks, Van -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20150225/1045d863/attachment-0001.html>