Open Stack

On 07/28/2016 07:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> I think it is a reasonable expectation that teams would want to add
> their new repositories to the governance list to have the rights
> that go along with that, but I'm not aware of any requirement that
> they do so.

Reviewing that change that added the repos, I was struggling with these
interpretations myself.

Here's a team that creates a spec that states they want to develop
certain parts outside of the big tent and seem to work as team on it
(so, much that their marketing believes it;) - a team that is part of
the big tent.

AFAIU, they could have easily opted on adding these repos to their
project and do the same kind of experimentation that they are doing now
as "stackforge" repos.

Most teams are happy to have their new repos as part of the big tent -
let's leave the Neutron stadium out for now which showed some of the
limits for this.

Being part of the Big tent has some advantages - but I did not
understand what kind of advantages it brings the team to have these
repos outside of the big tent.

But it's not my call to make how they do it, and thus I reviewed
positively - I just got the impression that either we have different
understandings on what it means that repos are in the big tent or not -
or I'm missing some information.

If there're any advantages or disadvantages or considerating regarding
the big tent for teams to add repos that I miss, I'd like to be aware of
them so that I can give guidance during project-config review,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
       HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126