Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
>> Likewise, what if the Manila project team decides they aren't interested 
>> in supporting Python 3.5 or a particular greenlet library du jour that 
>> has been mandated upon them? Is the only filesystem-as-a-service project 
>> going to be booted from the tent?
> 
> I hardly think "move off of the EOL-ed version of our language" and
> "use a library du jour" are in the same class.  All of the topics
> discussed so far are either focused on eliminating technical debt
> that project teams have not prioritized consistently or adding
> features that, again for consistency, are deemed important by the
> overall community (API microversioning falls in that category,
> though that's an example and not in any way an approved goal right
> now).

Right, the proposal is pretty clearly about setting a number of
reasonable, small goals for a release cycle that would be awesome to
collectively reach. Not really invasive top-down design mandates that we
would expect teams to want to resist.

IMHO if a team has a good reason for not wanting or not being able to
fulfill a common goal that's fine -- it just needs to get documented and
should not result in itself in getting kicked out from anything. If a
team regularly skips on common goals (and/or misses releases, and/or
doesn't fix security issues) that's a general sign that it's not really
behaving like an OpenStack project and then a case could be opened for
removal, but there is nothing new here.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)