Open Stack

Luke Gorrie wrote:
> "Cooperative behavior" is vague.

I realize I was way too vague and apologize if you felt threatened in
any way. It is terminology borrowed from sociology, and I realize it
does not translate that well in general discussion (and appears stronger
than I really meant).

> Case in point: I have not successfully setup 3rd party CI for the ML2
> driver that I've developed on behalf of a vendor. Does this make me one
> of your "uncooperative vendors"? Do I need to worry about being fired
> because somebody at OpenStack decides to "name and shame" the company
> I'm doing the work for and make an example? (Is that what the
> "deprecated neutron drivers list" will be used for?)

This is a technical requirement, and failing to match those requirements
is clearly not the same as engaging in deception or otherwise failing
the OpenStack community code of conduct.

If you fail to match a technical requirement, the only risk for you is
to get removed from the mainline code because the developers can't
maintain it properly. There is no harsh feelings or blame involved, it's
just a natural thing. It's also perfectly valid to ship drivers for
OpenStack out of tree. They are not "worse", they are just out of tree.

I hope this clarifies,

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)