Open Stack

Sean Dague wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:00 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> I do not think kiloeyes needs a mentor. It has 6 commits. It's not
>> actually a thing. thinking about it is a waste of our time until such a
>> future time when it is actually a thing (which is a time I hope does not
>> come, btw, because they should just be collaborating with monasca)
> 
> I think this has been my frustration with assuming TC mentoring of
> not-yet-openstack projects is a thing we should sign up for. The goal
> isn't to grow OpenStack to a 100 projects. The goal is that projects
> that work like the rest of the OpenStack community get recognized as such.
> 
> The TC energy seems much better spent on key cross project issues
> affecting our existing ecosystem and users.

I certainly see your point. My concern is that we keep a large number of
applications around as open governance reviews, waiting for $SOMETHING
to happen there before we should reconsider them. How should we judge
when those are ready to be put back on the docket ?

My suggestion was that rather than having nobody (or everyone) watching
that, we should have someone different keeping track of each, to spread
the load. I can certainly see how that can be a loss of our precious
time, especially as more and more projects apply.

I'm fine with the burden of "reproposing when ready" falling on the
proposer. But then I think we should really reject the original proposal
altogether, rather than keeping it around with vague comment, no real -2
vote, and no real way for anyone to signal "hey now it *is* ready!".

Would you all be fine with that instead ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)