Open Stack

 ---- On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 01:03:47 -0600 Rico Lin <rico.lin.guanyu at gmail.com> wrote ----
 > Dear SIG members and chairs
 > To follow the discussion in Meta SIG PTG room [1]. I would like to propose to change the following SIGs to Advisory status [2] to represent the SIG stays around for provide help, make sure everything stays working and provide advice when needed.K8s SIG
 > API SIG
 > Extended Maintenance SIG
 > Operation Docs SIG
 > If you think your SIG should not belong to `advisory` statue. Please advise from the following statuses:active: SIG reaches out for discussion and event, have plans for the current cycle, host meetings or send ML out regularly.
 > 
 > forming: SIG still setting up.
 > 
 > advisory: SIG stays around for help, make sure everything stays working and provide advice when needed.

Thanks a lot Rico for all your effort for the SIG help and management. 

+1. I like the 'advisory' status which will clear out the difference between inactive and "active but with on-demand services only".
One question on this status- Does this still include the updates on repo/guidance doc etc ? For Example: if I want to add a few more
guidelines or changes to current repo/doc-sites etc then this SIG will still go with usual discussion and review process and not
saying that 'we are in an advisory role so we have closed any repo/doc update'.

It will be good if you can explain those statuses in detail with their scope activity in sig-guidelines doc. 

 > API SIG

Is it ok to move api-sig to 'advisory'? I think Michael mentioned about some work to finish on traiging the
current open issues/todo etc.  Should we wait for that work to be finished? May be Michael or Dmitry
can update on the latest status.

 > complete: SIG completes its mission.

Can we include some status for the inactive SIG who has not completed its mission? something like 'On-Hold' or 'Need-help' etc.
It will help if anyone looking for that SIG can help or manage. It is more like backlogs for history and reference if same type of problem
comes and someone wants to form a SIG. 

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008683.html

-gmann

 > 
 > If that sounds correct, I need at least one chair from each SIG +1 on [2], so we can make sure it's what SIGs agreed on.
 > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-meta-sig[2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/695625/
 > 
 > -- 
 > May The Force of OpenStack Be With You, 
 > Rico Lin
 > irc: ricolin 
 >  
 >  
 > 
 >