[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept
mestery at mestery.com
Thu Feb 4 14:38:12 UTC 2016
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com> wrote:
> As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list:
> I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the
> criteria you listed.
> Dragonflow is fully developed under Neutron/OpenStack, no other
> repositories. It is fully Open source and already have a community of people
> contributing and interest from various different companies and OpenStack
> deployers. (I can prepare the list of active contributions and of interested
> parties) It also puts OpenStack Neutron APIs and use cases as first class
> citizens and working on being an integral part of OpenStack.
> I agree that OVN needs to be part of the list, but you brought up this
> criteria in regards to ODL, so: OVN like ODL is not only Neutron and
> OpenStack and is even running/being implemented on a whole different
> governance model and requirements to it.
> I think you also forgot to mention some other projects as well that are
> fully open source with a vibrant and diverse community, i will let them
> comment here by themselves.
> Frankly this approach disappoints me, I have honestly worked hard to make
> Dragonflow fully visible and add and support open discussion and follow the
> correct guidelines to work in a project. I think that Dragonflow community
> has already few members from various companies and this is only going to
> grow in the near future. (in addition to deployers that are considering it
> as a solution) we also welcome anyone that wants to join and be part of the
> process to step in, we are very welcoming
> I also think that the correct way to do this is to actually add as reviewers
> all lieutenants of the projects you are now removing from Neutron big
> stadium and letting them comment.
I don't think it's a completely fair characterize this as anything
other than an attempt to accurately reflect what the Neutron team can
stand behind. Most of these other open source projects (like
Dragonflow, networking-odl, even networking-ovn) can quite easily
apply for Big Tent admission, and would make the grade pretty easily.
This was not done to hurt anyones feelings or anything, and I know
Russell spent a lot of time on this. We knew this conversation would
be difficult, so I applaud him for sticking his neck out here and
moving things forward.
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2015 07:56 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>> > I would like to suggest that we evolve the structure of the Neutron
>> > governance, so that most of the deliverables that are now part of the
>> > Neutron stadium become standalone projects that are entirely
>> > self-governed (they have their own core/release teams, etc).
>> After thinking over the discussion in this thread for a while, I have
>> started the following proposal to implement the stadium renovation that
>> Armando originally proposed in this thread.
>> Russell Bryant
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Best Regards ,
> The G.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev