Open Stack

On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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>
>     > <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow
> the networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention be one
> of the criteria? I look forward to your proposal.

Good question.  I think consistency is good, especially when there are
so many of them.  It helps make it clear that they're all following some
sort of pattern.  Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if needed.

-- 
Russell Bryant