[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Russell Bryant rbryant at redhat.com
Fri Feb 5 01:25:42 UTC 2016

On 02/04/2016 05:36 PM, Assaf Muller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins <sean at coreitpro.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote:
>>> I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium'
>>> and 'Dragonflow having high visibility' as tied together. I'm curious,
>>> from a practical perspective, how does being a part of the stadium
>>> give Dragonflow visibility? If it were not a part of the stadium and
>>> you had your own PTL etc, what specifically would change so that
>>> Dragonflow would be less visible.
>>> Currently I don't understand why
>>> being a part of the stadium is good or bad for a networking project,
>>> or why does it matter.
>> I think the issue is of public perception.
> That's what I was trying to point out. But it must be something other
> than perception, otherwise we could remove the inclusion list
> altogether. A project would not be in or out.

There has to be a list somewhere.  That's how OpenStack governance
works.  We have project teams that work together to produce a set of
deliverables, where each deliverable is made up of one or more git

The ongoing issue is trying to find the right structure that matches how
our teams are working and what they're willing to own.  The current
approach hasn't worked, so it's time for another iteration.

Russell Bryant

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list