Open Stack

On 7/27/2015 5:20 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:

> I think you need to acknowledge in both email topic and in content that
> Sean tried to draw the fact that you are duplicating this work on July
> 16th. Collaboration is much more than "our meeting decided you shouldn't
> do your work". Perhaps taking a step back and acknowledging the work of
> others might set a nicer tone to your efforts.

Anita,

I think it might just be a matter of wording and limited bandwidth of 
written communication. I believe Cathy was doing exactly what you seem 
to be accusing her of not doing. Specifically, raising on the mailing 
list a topic of discussion that was covered during an IRC meeting and 
asking for input from anyone who may have an interest but who wasn't 
part of the IRC meeting.

The SFC team isn't unilaterally vetoing [1], we simply seemed to reach a 
consensus that the two APIs are confusingly similar. Cathy's email was 
specifically to ask whether anyone else is opposed to the idea of using 
the more comprehensive API to perform the function of the less 
feature-full API.

If there's any reason we've overlooked why [1] shouldn't be considered a 
use case within the broader SFC feature, then responses to Cathy's email 
are very welcome. That's why she said "Please let us know if you have 
different opinion."

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/