Open Stack

I love that we are getting feedback from deployers/operations/etc.  Thanks
to all who have spoken up in support from that perspective.

On 4/16/14 4:02 AM, "Day, Phil" <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:

>> 
>They are intended to be high level designs rather than low level designs,
>so no they don't have to include all of the implementation details.
>
>On the other hand they should provided not only the info required to
>decide that the feature is worth implementing, but also enough details so
>that the reviewers can agree on the overall design approach (to avoid
>churn late in the implementation review) and cover a number of other
>areas that can and should be considered before the implementation starts
>but seem too often get overlooked and are quite hard to dig back out from
>the code (like what is the impact going to be on an system that's already
>running).   The template is specifically set up to try and prompt the
>submitter to think about these issues, and I think that brings a huge
>amount of value to this stage.  At the moment I'm seeing a number of
>sections being answered as "None" when really this seems to be "don't
>know" or "didn't think about that" - and I'm thinking that we should ask
>for a simple one-line justification of why there is no impact.

There may be some consistency work needed.  I spent some time/text in
justification around no security impact in a spec.  I was guided
specifically that None was a better statement.

Christopher