Open Stack

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
> While I agree with Doug that we assume good faith and hope for the best, I
> personally think we should help them (what we're doing now) but also make
> sure we DO NOT set a precedent. We could probably learn from this situation
> and document in our governance what the TC expects when companies have a
> fork and need to contribute back at some point. We all know StarlingX isn't
> alone and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of deployments out there who are
> in the same situation.

/me pus on ex-TC hat for a minute

Emilien, I totally agree with you here but would word it differently:
we should absolutely set a precedent, but one that exhibits how we
want to handle what ttx calls 'convergent' forks.  These already
exist, like it or not.  What I hope can be established is some
guidelines and boundaries on how to deal with these rather than just
reject them out-of-hand.

> I guess my point is, yes for helping StarlingX now but no for incubating
> future forks if that happens. Like Graham, I think these methods shouldn't
> be what we encourage in our position.

Again, I agree, we have said that sort of thing all along: "don't
fork".  Many have had to learn that lesson the hard way.  This is
another opportunity to show _why_ it can be a bad idea.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com