Open Stack

Russell Bryant wrote:
> 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.

Maybe about time we make something like:

http://projects.apache.org/indexes/category.html

And link names to repos there...?

>
>> 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.
>