Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 14:38:12 -0400: > On 28/07/16 14:20, Jay Pipes wrote: > > How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be > > "part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying > > to be part of the OpenStack tent? > > If it were clear what it means for a repo to be "part of the OpenStack > tent" then it would be obvious to *everyone* which ones should be and > which ones should not. As it is there are two different interpretations > from which follow two different conclusions as to whether the Right > Thing(TM) is happening, causing unnecessary wailing and gnashing of > teeth. Please re-read my original message on this subject for a full > treatment. > > cheers, > Zane. >
There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered part of the big tent: It needs to be listed in the projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository, associated with a deliverable from a team that has been accepted as a big tent member. The Fuel team has stated that they are not ready to include the work in these new repositories under governance, and indeed the repositories are not listed in the set of deliverables for the Fuel team [1]. Therefore, the situation is clear, to me: They are not part of the big tent. Doug [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/fuel.html#deliverables-and-tags __________________________________________________________________________ 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
