On 13:33 Nov 28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> The OpenStack community wants to encourage collaboration by emphasizing
> contributions to projects that abstract differences between
> vendor-specific products, while still empowering vendors to integrate
> their products with OpenStack through drivers that
Excerpts from Kevin Benton's message of 2016-11-30 03:23:04 -0700:
> >I'll let someone from the Neutron team fill in the details behind their
> >decision,
> because I don't want to misrepresent them.
>
> I can shed a bit of light on this since I'm a core and had been working for
> a driver vendor
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> 5. Consider driver teams to be a completely different animal, defined
>in drivers.yaml instead of projects.yaml (grey option) [6]
>
>This establishes drivers as second-order objects that are necessary
>for the success of the main projects, and for which r
At the last TC meeting [1] we discussed this topic and the various options
that were presented, here's a quick recap:
Options that will be removed, the patches for these options will be
abandoned:
- Red (option 6), it had the least support
- Hard black (option 1) in favor of soft black (option
Armando M. wrote:
> That's when I came up with the proposal of defining the neutron stadium
> as a list of projects that behave consistently and adhere to a common
> set of agreed principles, such as common backporting strategies, testing
> procedures, including our ability to claim the entire tech
On 30 November 2016 at 02:23, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >I'll let someone from the Neutron team fill in the details behind their
> >decision,
> because I don't want to misrepresent them.
>
> I can shed a bit of light on this since I'm a core and had been working
> for a driver vendor at the time of
On 29 November 2016 at 10:08, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-11-29 12:36:03 -0500:
> > On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
> > >> On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > >>>
On 29 November 2016 at 09:36, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
>
On 11/30/2016 06:54 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-11-30 09:12:18 -0600 (-0600), Anne Gentle wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
>>> Perhaps they wanted to publish documentation to the
>>> docs.openstack.org site? That's traditionally only been allowed by
On 2016-11-30 09:12:18 -0600 (-0600), Anne Gentle wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> > Perhaps they wanted to publish documentation to the
> > docs.openstack.org site? That's traditionally only been allowed by
> > the Docs team for official project deliverables
at 3:12 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Allowing Teams Based on Vendor-specific
Drivers
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley
mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>> wrote:
On 2016-11-29 20:19:13 + (
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-11-29 20:19:13 + (+), gordon chung wrote:
> [...]
> > i don't recall why they were moved to be officially under the Telemetry
> > umbrella[3] but i remember they weren't allowed to do something if they
> > weren't part of an
>I'll let someone from the Neutron team fill in the details behind their
>decision,
because I don't want to misrepresent them.
I can shed a bit of light on this since I'm a core and had been working for
a driver vendor at the time of the split. There were a few areas of
contention:
* Releases an
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-29 21:52:35 +:
> On 2016-11-29 13:40:56 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-29 21:10:35 +:
> [...]
> > > I also feel very strongly that those alone would be terrible reasons
> > > to consid
On 2016-11-29 13:40:56 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-29 21:10:35 +:
[...]
> > I also feel very strongly that those alone would be terrible reasons
> > to consider becoming an official project team under the governance
> > of the OpenStack
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-29 21:10:35 +:
> On 2016-11-29 21:00:06 + (+), Sam Betts (sambetts) wrote:
> [...]
> > Additionally, being “official” indicates a level of maturity which
> > benefits us as a project by improving the public perception of our
> > drivers,
Excerpts from Sam Betts (sambetts)'s message of 2016-11-29 21:00:06 +:
> There are a couple of reasons we want to become an official OpenStack project.
>
> From a project perspective, we want to be recognized that the project isn’t
> just a “public source” repo for Cisco’s drivers but is a co
On 29/11/16 03:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> Perhaps they wanted to publish documentation to the
> docs.openstack.org site? That's traditionally only been allowed by
> the Docs team for official project deliverables.
that's probably it, i just couldn't find their docs.
from our experience, we
On 2016-11-29 21:00:06 + (+), Sam Betts (sambetts) wrote:
[...]
> Additionally, being “official” indicates a level of maturity which
> benefits us as a project by improving the public perception of our
> drivers, and also indicates to OpenStack users that OpenStack
> itself is mature and ha
There are a couple of reasons we want to become an official OpenStack project.
From a project perspective, we want to be recognized that the project isn’t
just a “public source” repo for Cisco’s drivers but is a community driven open
source project for supporting Cisco hardware/software and we w
On 2016-11-29 20:19:13 + (+), gordon chung wrote:
[...]
> i don't recall why they were moved to be officially under the Telemetry
> umbrella[3] but i remember they weren't allowed to do something if they
> weren't part of an 'official' project. if i could remember what it was
> this paragra
On 29/11/16 01:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> If we start by assuming that contributors may end up getting more
> value from seeming to be a part of the community than the community
> will get from their participation, and that we have to guard against
> that because it somehow diminishes us, it s
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 11:55:30 -0600:
> On 11/29/2016 10:55 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > I agree that clearly documenting who supports each driver, and how
> > tightly integrated that team is with the core team will be important.
> > That will be the case no matter
Excerpts from Anita Kuno's message of 2016-11-29 12:37:21 -0500:
> On 2016-11-29 11:27 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > I think we also need to look harder at the reasons for driver-only
> > developer teams seeking official status. If it's because they want
> > to be part of the community and help col
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-11-29 12:36:03 -0500:
> On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
> >> On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>> I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like
On 11/29/2016 10:55 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I agree that clearly documenting who supports each driver, and how
tightly integrated that team is with the core team will be important.
That will be the case no matter what solution we pick (even saying
that drivers aren't official isn't going to avo
On 2016-11-29 11:27 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
I think we also need to look harder at the reasons for driver-only
developer teams seeking official status. If it's because they want
to be part of the community and help collaborate with the rest of
us, then as long as they can do that consistent wit
On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
them.
Just curious...what would you "actually like"?
Chris
My pre
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-11-29 17:19:15 +0100:
> On 28/11/16 13:33 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >5. Consider driver teams to be a completely different animal, defined
> > in drivers.yaml instead of projects.yaml (grey option) [6]
> >
> > This establishes drivers as second
On 2016-11-28 13:33:56 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> 1. A resolution reaffirming the "level playing field" requirement,
>and acknowledging that it effectively precludes official status
>for teams which only develop drivers for proprietary systems
>(hard black) [2]
[...]
>
On 28/11/16 13:33 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
5. Consider driver teams to be a completely different animal, defined
in drivers.yaml instead of projects.yaml (grey option) [6]
This establishes drivers as second-order objects that are necessary
for the success of the main projects, and for w
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
> On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
> > them.
>
> Just curious...what would you "actually like"?
>
> Chris
>
My preference is to have teams j
On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
them.
Just curious...what would you "actually like"?
Chris
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not fo
I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
them.
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-11-28 13:33:56 -0500:
> 6. A resolution requiring projects that consume drivers to host all
>proposed drivers. (red option) [7]
>
>This would require teams with proj
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> 5. Consider driver teams to be a completely different animal, defined
>in drivers.yaml instead of projects.yaml (grey option) [6]
>
>This establishes drivers as second-order objects that are necessary
>for the success of the main projects, and for which r
On 11/28/2016 01:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I'm raising this as an issue because it's not just a hypothetical
problem. The Cisco networking driver team, having been removed from
the Neutron stadium, is asking for status as a separate official
team [1]. I would very much like to find a way to say
The OpenStack community wants to encourage collaboration by emphasizing
contributions to projects that abstract differences between
vendor-specific products, while still empowering vendors to integrate
their products with OpenStack through drivers that can be consumed
by the abstraction layers.
So
37 matches
Mail list logo
