Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered
> part of the big tent: It needs to be listed in the projects.yaml
> file in the openstack/governance repository, associated with a
> deliverable from a team that has been accepted as a big tent member.
> 
> The Fuel team has stated that they are not ready to include the
> work in these new repositories under governance, and indeed the
> repositories are not listed in the set of deliverables for the Fuel
> team [1].
> 
> Therefore, the situation is clear, to me: They are not part of the
> big tent.

Reading this thread after a week off, I'd like to +1 Doug's
interpretation since it was referenced to describe the status quo.

As others have said, we wouldn't even have that discussion if the new
repositories didn't use "fuel" as part of the naming. We probably
wouldn't have that discussion either if the Fuel team affiliation was
more diverse and the new repositories were an experiment of a specific
subgroup of that team.

NB: I *do* have some concerns about single-vendor OpenStack projects
that don't grow more diverse affiliations over time, but that's a
completely separate topic.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)