Open Stack

> On 20 Sep 2017, at 09:49, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> 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:
> 
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_SIGs
> 
> 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.

Hi Thierry - 

Thanks - I’ve added some further details transcribed from our wiki page.

Best wishes,
Stig