Open Stack

On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi <mb at us.ibm.com<mailto:mb at us.ibm.com>>
 wrote:

>Yes, indeed.
>I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original "Group
>Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
>After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three
>summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this
>thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the
>work now?
>
>I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
>time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly
>and openly earlier.

I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs GBP or not.
It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety of other more
important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the summit and it was
clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse. From the demo
it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't at the top
of my priority list.

For people to be asking to justify the "why" this far into the Juno cycle
when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit really
brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to discuss
technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to pull the rug
out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after such a long
period of development, discussion, and demo.

Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution after so much
time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling effect on
contributors.

~