Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-06-29 09:35:01 -0600: > On 06/29/2017 09:23 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > We are already WELL past where we can solve the problem you are describing. > > Pandora's box has been opened - we have defined ourselves as an Open > > community. > > Our only requirement to be official is that you behave as one of us. There > > is > > nothing stopping those machine learning projects from becoming official. If > > they > > did become official but were still bad software - what would we have solved? > > > > We have a long-time official project that currently has staffing problems. > > If > > someone Googles for OpenStack DBaaS and finds Trove and then looks to see > > that > > the contribution rate has fallen off recently they could get the impression > > that > > OpenStack is a bunch of dead crap. > > > > Inclusion as an Official Project in OpenStack is not an indication that > > anyone > > thinks the project is good quality. That's a decision we actively made. > > This is > > the result. > > I wonder if it would be useful to have a separate orthogonal status as to > "level > of stability/usefulness/maturity/quality" to help newcomers weed out projects > that are under TC governance but are not ready for prime time. > > Chris >
It would be. When we made the shift away from the old incubation process to our current 4-opens-based governance process, we said the TC was not necessarily the right body to be making that call. We may have the expertise for one project, but not another. We also said that because different people could reasonably have different opinions based on different criteria, The Market or The Community should produce that information and share it. Doug __________________________________________________________________________ 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
