> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan <cboy...@sapwetik.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sean Dague wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was >>>>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts >>>>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think >>>>> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head. >>>> >>>> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host >>>> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends >>>> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that >>>> we don't actually do. >>> >>> Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that >>> to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous. >> >> Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as >> "immature >> experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is >> ironic-inspector >> going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back >> then, even >> though it was already used in production. > > A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get > rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge > for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted > just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium) > name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack > means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we > could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat > namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra > tooling”.
I dunno. I understand that it’s extra work to have two namespaces, but it sends a clear message. Approved TC, UC, and Board projects remain under openstack, and unofficial move to a name that is not openstack (i.e. stackforge/opium/etc). As part of a branding exercise, it creates a clear, easy to understand, and explain division. For names like stackforge being considered a pejorative, we can work as a community against that. I know that when I was helping run the puppet modules under stackforge, I was proud of the work and understood it to mean that it was a community supported, but not official project. I was pretty sad when stackforge went away, precisely because of the confusion we’re experiencing with ‘big tent’ today. > The hosting location isn't meant to convey anything beyond the project > is hosted on a Gerrit run by infra and tests are run by Zuul. > stackforge/ is not an (anti)endorsement (and neither is openstack/). > > Unfortunately, I expect that doing this will also result in a bunch of > confusion around "why is OpenStack being renamed", "what is happening to > OpenStack governance", etc. > >>>> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure" >>>> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project >>>> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects >>>> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà! >>>> -- >>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > Clark > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
