Open Stack

On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>     >
>     >         Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
>     >         'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron,
>     because
>     >         they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or another (e.g.
>     >         having 3rd-party, extending-api, integrating-via-plugin-model,
>     >         etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the
>     projects.yaml
>     >         to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any other project)
>     >         once we defined its ontology.
>     >
>     >         Thoughts?
>     >
>     >
>     >     That seems interesting, but given the communities stated goals
>     >     around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not, adding
>     >     these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger OpenStack Bigger
>     >     Tent, would be a good thing.
>     >
>     >     Thanks,
>     >     Kyle
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should
>     stress the
>     > fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home for these
>     > projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems like
>     we're
>     > still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a point where
>     > the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us
>     make a
>     > more informed decision compared to the one we can make right now.
> 
>     Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and would help
>     make you feel more informed?
> 
> 
> I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project belongs or
> doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however we end
> up calling it :)

OK, that's fine.  Figuring that out is the next step if folks agree with
Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos.  I'm happy to write up a
strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations
around responsibilities and communication.

-- 
Russell Bryant