Hi all, As discussed at this week's meeting [1] all user stories have now been moved from telcowg-usecases to openstack-userstories and we will be suspending the Telco Working Group meetings moving forward. Participants are encouraged to attend one of the two weekly Product Working Group meeting times [2] to discuss and advocate for the relevant user stories going forward. Please also note that there is a product-wg mailing list [3] for discussion of same. For those attending summit please note these collaboration sessions: * OPNFV and OpenStack Collaboration BoF [4] * Ops: NFV/Telco [5] Thanks, Steve [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/telcowg/2016/telcowg.2016-04-13-14.01.html [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#OpenStack_Product_WG [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/product-wg/ [4] https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/7510?goback=1 [5] https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9522?goback=1 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com> > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Calum Loudon" <Calum.Loudon at metaswitch.com> > > > > Thanks Steve > > > > I agree with moving to the PWG. > > > > On that topic, do you know what's happened to some of the user stories we > > proposed, specifically https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290060/ and > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290347/? Neither shows up in > > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/openstack-user-stories > > This query includes status:open, and those two reviews were merged already so > they don't show up. > > > but there is a https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290991/ which seems to be a > > copy of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290060/ with the template help > > text > > added back in and no mention of the original? > > From Shamail's comment in 290991: > > This change should be used to discuss and refine the concept. Can the > user story owner please make a minor change to show ownership? > > Basically they opened new reviews with a minor change to trigger further > discussion. I'm not in love with this approach versus just discussing it on > the original move request but it is the way it is being done for now. W.r.t. > 290060 I believe you probably meant to include another link but I imagine > the situation is the same. > > -Steve