Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2018-06-04 13:41:36 -0500: > On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:05 AM, Jay S Bryant <jungleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Do we have that problem? I honestly don't know how much pressure other > >> folks are feeling. My impression is that we've mostly become good at > >> finding the necessary compromises, but my experience doesn't cover all > >> of our teams. > > In my experience this hasn't been a problem for quite some time. In the > > past, at least for Cinder, there were some minor cases of this but as > > projects have matured this has been less of an issue. > > Those rules were added because we wanted to avoid the appearance of one > company implementing features that would only be beneficial to it. This arose > from concerns in the early days when Rackspace was the dominant contributor: > many of the other companies involved in OpenStack were worried that they > would be investing their workers in a project that would only benefit > Rackspace. As far as I know, there were never specific cases where Rackspace > or any other company tried to push features in that no one else supported.. > > So even if now it doesn't seem that there is a problem, and we could remove > these restrictions without ill effect, it just seems prudent to keep them. If > a project is so small that the majority of its contributors/cores are from > one company, maybe it should be an internal project for that company, and not > a community project. > > -- Ed Leafe
Where was the rule added, though? I am aware of some individual teams with the rule, but AFAIK it was never a global rule. It's certainly not in any of the projects for which I am currently a core reviewer. 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
