On 05/06/2016 12:25 PM, Van Lindberg wrote: > Regarding #1, (and I guess even #2 also), it is good to listen to the TC's opinion on these matters, but aren't we governed by the board-approved weighing/inclusion process? Totally. However, one of those is "Aligns with Technical Direction" - so the TC is attempting to be pro-active in clearly communicating technical direction. That the nova proxy apis mentioned in #2 are a bad idea and should go away is pretty much universally agreed to. This step is "let the defcore folks know that we'd like to make these go away" so that such information can be taken in to account and we don't wind up in a sticky situation down the road. Hopefully nothing here suggests anything more than just active communication. > Hi Folks, > > For those of you who didn’t catch it elsewhere, here are a couple of DefCore-related things that the TC is currently considering that you may want to be aware of: > > "add resolution explaining which tests we think defcore should use" > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312718/ > > "add resolution asking defcore committee to avoid using proxy APIs in tests" > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312719/ > > At Your Service, > > Mark T. Voelker > > > > _______________________________________________ > Defcore-committee mailing list > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee > > _______________________________________________ > Defcore-committee mailing list > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee >