Open Stack

On 07/11/2013 12:39 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 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 ?

I suppose that's fair, but I think it's a bogus set of criteria to use.
 I think it's up to the technical community to decide whether it even
makes sense for something to be pluggable in the first place (for
whatever pluggable may mean).  I find it inappropriate to assume that it
is always the correct answer.

-- 
Russell Bryant