Open Stack

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:20:14PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 5 September 2014 13:59, Nikola Đipanov <ndipanov at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Since this did not get an 'Approved' as of yet, I want to make sure that
> > this is not because the number of sponsors. 2 core members have already
> > sponsored it, and as per [1] cores can sponsor their own FFEs so that's 3.
> 
> While I am no fan of that idea, this was already in the gate, so 2
> cores should be more than enough.
> 
> Mikal has said I could approve FFEs in his absence, but given the
> conflict in the thread, I want to leave this approval to him :)
> 
> I know its 10 patches, but I think we can try resolve the discussion
> on the thread, and look to approve this on Monday morning, and still
> make it before the deadline. Do shout up if that seems impossible
> and/or stupid.

If you want to delegate to Mikal for casting vote I think that
is not the end of the world. After all, few of us are going to
be seriously working over the weekend, so approving FFE tonight
vs monday morning austrailia time isn't a significant difference.
I assume you'll ping him to ensure he sees it on monday as a high
priority item.

As a general point though, I'm wary of letting the FFE proposal
be a place where we re-open the design discussions on any of the
FFE requests. These patches have been under active review and were
all approved to merge with no -2-severity objections. If it had
not been for the huge backlog this would all be in tree already
and we'd be focusing on testing it and ironing out any bugs we
identify, which is ultimately where our focus needs to be now.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|