Open Stack

Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 02:53 PM, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
>> Background info: https://etherpad.openstack.org/Board-2013-SpiderDiscussion
> 
> This is the first time I've seen this.  I must admit that my initial
> reaction is that I'm not comfortable with the direction this seems to be
> taking.
> 
> I understand the need to have a solid definition of what "core" means.
> I also assume that the goal here is to eventually arrive at some set of
> definitions and policies.
> 
> However, some of the specific items discussed on this etherpad are
> things that are in my opinion, in TC (or even project specific
> governance) territory, and should be considered out of scope for any
> policy coming from the board.

This is new to me too, but AFAICT it's an effort to define the list of
criteria the board intends to apply for granting the "core" label on a
given project.

We ruled that the TC was free to produce the stuff it wanted, and that
the board was free to apply a "core" label to a subset of that. they are
also free to define what they mean by "core" (or any other label they
may want to create).

As an example:

> * In the introduction, the secondary issue identified is whether
> projects should be pluggable.  I believe this is TC territory.

If they want to grant the "core" label only to pluggable projects, I'm
not sure that would be in our territory ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)