Given how this discussion has gone, I understand Mohammad's despair. But it seems like people are treating the Stackforge proposal as really nothing more than a black hole. I'm a relative newcomer to this community, so that's probably why I took Mark at his word when he presented it as a way to quickly improve API design. Well, that, and I'm a complete believer that iterating on running code is 10x better than any form of doc review.
Chuck On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi <m...@us.ibm.com<mailto:m...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: Yes, indeed. I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original "Group Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of heartbreaking. After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the work now? I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly and openly earlier. Best, Mohammad <graycol.gif>Stefano Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > So I don't think it's fair to blame re From: Stefano Maffulli <stef...@openstack.org<mailto:stef...@openstack.org>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward) ________________________________ On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote: > So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here. Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person conversations over more than one release cycle and summits. I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle. In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the message Mark McClain sent, especially the "Why this email" which I quote below: > Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy > (GBP) for many months. I think the discussion has reached a point > where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward. [...] I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree? We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email. /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org<https://ask.openstack.org/> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
