Open Stack

Hi Rocky,

Can you please submit the new patch before the next TC meeting and see if
we can get on the agenda again?  Also, let's use user-stories as the repo
name if that is possible.  Openstack/openstack-user-stories seems a bit
long/redundant and openstack/user-stories would only contain OpenStack
once...  Does everyone agree with the change?

Thanks,
Shamail


On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Barrett, Carol L <
carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:

> Rocky - It looks like we're good to go. Can you modify the user committee
> file as a patch to include our repo?
>
> Thanks
> Carol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 12:17 AM
> To: Tom Fifield; user-committee at lists.openstack.org; Allamaraju, Subbu;
> Jon Proulux
> Subject: Re: [User-committee] Approval/support for Product WG to be a
> project under User Committee
>
>
> I would be in favour of the approach as outlined (with Tom's comment
> included)
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
> > Sent: 07 July 2015 06:49
> > To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org; Tim Bell; Allamaraju, Subbu;
> > Jon Proulux
> > Subject: Re: [User-committee] Approval/support for Product WG to be a
> > project under User Committee
> >
> > This matches what we discussed at the summit.
> >
> > Tim/Subbu/Jon, can you give an official nod?
> >
> >
> > Suggestion for your wording change - use "Working Group" rather than
> > "project" to keep in-line with what we've been using so far.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 07/07/15 10:26, Rochelle Grober wrote:
> > > Hey, folks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Product Working Group is in the process of trying to get a
> > > repository instantiated for User Stories (hopefully at
> > > openstack/openstack-user-stories) and in the process of walking
> > > through the process, found it would be much simpler to actually form
> > > a project that owns the repository.  Once that was realized, it was
> > > suggested (thanks Thierry!) that the likely best location for us
> > > would be under the auspices of the User Committee.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With the committee’s ok, I’d like to modify the current patch commit
> > > message, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197754/ to read:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > “The Product Working group would like to be formally recognized as a
> > > project within the User Committee governance body.”
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And would change the file to be modified to be the
> > > openstack/governance/reference/user-committee-repos.yaml with the
> > > group’s information.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?  The patch is under discussion at tomorrow’s
> > > meeting, but if I get a generally positive response from the list, I
> > > will be able to at least propose that the current patch be abandoned
> > > for one that puts the Product WG under the auspices of the User
> > Committee.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Rocky Grober (on behalf of the Product Working Group)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > User-committee mailing list
> > > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> _______________________________________________
> Product-wg mailing list
> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>



-- 
Thanks,
Shamail Tahir
t: @ShamailXD
tz: Eastern Time