Open Stack

On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
> <dougwig at parksidesoftware.com <mailto:dougwig at parksidesoftware.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     > On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>     <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > 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>
>     >> <mailto: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>>
>     >>> <mailto: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.
> 
>     There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite
>     active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d
>     be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining.

To be honest, I really don't care about the names.  All it takes is some
pretty easy docs to help people figure out what things are and where
they live.  Making it a recommendation is fine with me.

> 
> If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this
> mean we've built consensus on the "yes, it makes sense for these to live
> under Neutron" argument?

Ha.  I figured I'd give it at least another day before stirring up more
debate with a proposal around criteria / responsibilities / expectations.

-- 
Russell Bryant