[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Allowing Teams Based on Vendor-specific Drivers

Zane Bitter zbitter at redhat.com
Tue Nov 29 17:36:03 UTC 2016

On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
>> On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
>>> them.
>> Just curious...what would you "actually like"?
>> Chris
> My preference is to have teams just handle the drivers voluntarily,
> without needing to make it a rule or provide a way to have teams
> that only work on a driver. That's not one of the options we proposed,
> but the results are like what we would get with option 6 (minus the
> precedent of the TC telling teams what code they must manage).

I don't have a lot of background on why the driver was removed from the 
Neutron stadium, but reading between the lines it sounds like you think 
that Neutron made the Wrong Call, and that you would like, in order of 

a) Neutron to start agreeing with you; or
b) The TC to tell Neutron to agree with you; or
c) To do an end run around Neutron by adding it as a separate project

Individual projects (like Neutron) have pretty wide latitude to add 
repositories if they want, and are presumably closer to the issues than 
anyone. So it seems strange that we're starting with a discussion about 
how to override their judgement, rather than one about why we think 
that's necessary.

What are the obstacles to the Neutron team agreeing to host these 
drivers? Perhaps the TC is in a position to remove some of those 
obstacles? That seems preferable to imposing new obligations on projects.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list