On 16:06 May 14, Nikhil Komawar wrote: > On 5/14/16 2:35 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > > Reading this thread, Nikhil who is speaking for the quota team is worried > > about > > the amount of overhead caused by governance, instead of first focusing on > > making something actually exist. I see quite a few people in this thread > > speaking up that it should be part of the big tent either standalone or oslo > > lib. > > > > I can't speak for the Oslo folks, but as a member of the TC here are the > > requirements for the standalone route [1]. You would propose an agenda item > > to > > the TC, and we would review that the project meets those requirements. > > Considering the project does Open Design and has an Open Community - my > > guesses > > on "probably would be followed" is Open Development and Open Source since we > > don't have anything but a specification that exists to go off of. > > > > It sounds like the biggest hang up in going the oslo route is the oslo > > spec. So > > question to the oslo folks, would you be interested in reviewing the > > cross-project specification and allowing to be an oslo lib? That way the > > team > > can focus on working on the library, and the community is happy it's part of > > OpenStack already. > > > > > > > > Thanks Mike for helping us move forward. > > After having been suggested yesterday, I have added this agenda item for > the Oslo team meeting to get the answers > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Oslo#Agenda_for_Next_Meeting . > > Also, can you please re-reference as the link did not come through?
[1] - http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html -- Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ 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
