[Openstack-sigs] [scientific] s/WG/SIG/g

Thierry Carrez thierry at openstack.org
Wed Sep 20 08:49:14 UTC 2017

Blair Bethwaite wrote:
> If you happen to have been following along with recent discussions
> about introducing OpenStack SIGs then this won't come as a surprise.
> PS: the openstack-sig mailing list has been minted - get on it!
> The meta-SIG is now looking for existing WGs who wish to convert to
> SIGs, see http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/2017-July/000022.html.
> The Scientific-WG is a good candidate for this because, at our core
> (as I see it), we've never really been about bounded task-oriented
> goals, but more of an open community of OpenStack
> operators/architects/users. At any point we may have groups working on
> particular goals, e.g., the OpenStack HPC&Science book, performance
> benchmarking/troubleshooting, integration architectures, and so on -
> these groups could in future be spun out to their own WGs if
> warranted.
> What does this mean, practically? Essentially we just do some renaming
> here and there and move our mailing list discussions to
> openstack-sigs at lists.openstack.org.
> We've already discussed this in the past couple of meetings and so far
> had no objections, so we're planning to move ahead with it soon. The
> intention of this thread is to canvas broader input.

Sorry for the late answer due to a busy last couple of weeks.

I agree that the Scientific WG is the canonical example of a SIG,
linking people from completely different backgrounds and experiences
around a specific use case.

I assume you want to use [scientific] as your subject prefix. Could you
add yourself to the SIG page at:


We might turn that into a more "official" site at one point but at the
moment that is where we list all current and incoming SIGs.


Thierry Carrez (ttx)

More information about the openstack-sigs mailing list