Open Stack

Doug, HMS Octavia was a British mine sweeper that served during WW2
figthing German warships and u-boats somewhere in the sea.
I therefore believe if you have anything against this name you are secretly
a nazi.

Does that work for the Godwin's law call?

Salvatore

On 23 April 2015 at 22:09, Doug Wiegley <dougwig at parksidesoftware.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> 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.
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Quick, someone invoke Godwin’s law, and then let’s ship this thing.
>
> doug
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Russell Bryant
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150423/1e4de627/attachment.html>