Open Stack

Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2018-06-12 09:28:48 -0500:
> 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.

Yes, well said.

> 
> > 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
>