Open Stack

On 15/06/17 14:09 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>[...]
>> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
>> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
>> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
>> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
>
>Not to be cynical, but it sounds like a return to StackForge under a
>different name.
>
>The thing I like about _not_ having a name for that is it's not an
>either/or situation. There are OpenStack projects under official
>governance, and everything else in existence (some of which we might
>host, other stuff is elsewhere on the Internet at large). Keeping
>the discussion focused on OpenStack is key for me. I am not
>personally keen on the idea of branding the Infrastructure team's
>work as an unrelated hosting service and feel like we only recently
>managed to get away from that paradigm when we ditched the
>StackForge branding as a euphemism for projects that weren't under
>OpenStack governance.

+1 I literally just sent an email asking whether we want to make this separation
more evident. The fact that we're picking these names makes me think it's
important for us to have such separation so that we can be clear on what the
releases will bring, among other things.

If we're going to have such separation, then I'd rather make it evident since
it's confusing for people to understand what the difference between big-tent and
official project is and the name change won't help much with this problem, I
reckon.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170615/332a97dc/attachment.sig>