On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Gal Sagie <gal.sa...@gmail.com> wrote: > As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list: > > I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the > criteria you listed. > > Dragonflow is fully developed under Neutron/OpenStack, no other > repositories. It is fully Open source and already have a community of people > contributing and interest from various different companies and OpenStack > deployers. (I can prepare the list of active contributions and of interested > parties) It also puts OpenStack Neutron APIs and use cases as first class > citizens and working on being an integral part of OpenStack. > > I agree that OVN needs to be part of the list, but you brought up this > criteria in regards to ODL, so: OVN like ODL is not only Neutron and > OpenStack and is even running/being implemented on a whole different > governance model and requirements to it. > > I think you also forgot to mention some other projects as well that are > fully open source with a vibrant and diverse community, i will let them > comment here by themselves. > > Frankly this approach disappoints me, I have honestly worked hard to make > Dragonflow fully visible and add and support open discussion and follow the > correct guidelines to work in a project. I think that Dragonflow community > has already few members from various companies and this is only going to > grow in the near future. (in addition to deployers that are considering it > as a solution) we also welcome anyone that wants to join and be part of the > process to step in, we are very welcoming > > I also think that the correct way to do this is to actually add as reviewers > all lieutenants of the projects you are now removing from Neutron big > stadium and letting them comment. > Hi Gal:
I don't think it's a completely fair characterize this as anything other than an attempt to accurately reflect what the Neutron team can stand behind. Most of these other open source projects (like Dragonflow, networking-odl, even networking-ovn) can quite easily apply for Big Tent admission, and would make the grade pretty easily. This was not done to hurt anyones feelings or anything, and I know Russell spent a lot of time on this. We knew this conversation would be difficult, so I applaud him for sticking his neck out here and moving things forward. Thanks! Kyle > Gal. > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2015 07:56 PM, Armando M. wrote: >> > I would like to suggest that we evolve the structure of the Neutron >> > governance, so that most of the deliverables that are now part of the >> > Neutron stadium become standalone projects that are entirely >> > self-governed (they have their own core/release teams, etc). >> >> After thinking over the discussion in this thread for a while, I have >> started the following proposal to implement the stadium renovation that >> Armando originally proposed in this thread. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/275888 >> >> -- >> Russell Bryant >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > -- > Best Regards , > > The G. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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
