Open Stack

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Fifield's message of 2014-05-21 21:39:22 -0700:
>> On 22/05/14 11:06, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
>> >> On 22/05/14 05:48, James E. Blair wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> May I ask, will the old names have some kind of redirect to the new
>> >>>> names?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course you may ask!  And it's a great question!  But sadly the answer
>> >>> is "no".  Unfortunately, Gerrit's support for renaming projects is not
>> >>> very good (which is why we need to take downtime to do it).
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm personally quite fond of stable URLs.  However, these started as an
>> >>> "experiment" so we were bound to get some things wrong (and will
>> >>> probably continue to do so) and it's better to try to fix them early.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a really poor outcome.
>> >>
>> >> Can we delay the migration until we have some time to think about the
>> >> communication strategy?
>> >>
>> >> At the least, I'd suggest a delay for renaming neutron-specs until until
>> >> after the peak of the Juno blueprint work is done. Say in ~3 weeks time.
>> >>
>> > I tend to agree with James that we should do this early and take the
>> > bullet on renaming now. The process for adding new Neutron specs is
>> > outlined here [1], and this will be updated once the repository is
>> > renamed. In addition, I'm working on adding/updating some Neutron wiki
>> > pages around the Neutron development process, and the specs repo will
>> > be highlighted there once that's done. It would be good to have the
>> > renaming done before then.
>>
>> ... and how would you propose we communicate this to the users we've
>> been asking to do blueprint review specifically during this early
>> period? We can't exactly send them an email saying "sorry, the link we
>> mentioned earlier is now wrong" :)
>>
>> What would you gain from doing it this week instead of later in the month?
>>
>> We're really trying to engage users to help out with the spec review
>> process, but it seems they weren't taken into account at all when
>> planning this change. Seems like a bad precedent to set for our first
>> "experiment".
>
> You didn't also ask them to subscribe to the users and/or operators
> mailing lists? I would think at least one of those two lists would be
> quite important for users to stay in the loop about the effort.
>
> Any large scale movement will be limited in scale by the scale of its
> mass communication.
>
I agree with Clint here. Participation involves more than just handing
a link out. While it's slightly inconvenient to have this change so
quick, the reality is that we need people to be engaged across all of
our forms of communication. We will do our best to communicate these
changes through all mediums necessary, but really, subscribing to the
mailing lists mentioned above from a users/ops perspective should
almost be a prerequisite.

Thanks,
Kyle

> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev