On 20/06/16 18:50, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-06-20 18:43:44 +0200 (+0200), Zane Bitter wrote:
The binaries are free-as-in-beer - IIUC you can't redistribute them. The
source code, of course, remains free-as-in-speech as it has always been.
(It's easy to forget the distinction when you work i
On 2016-06-20 18:43:44 +0200 (+0200), Zane Bitter wrote:
> The binaries are free-as-in-beer - IIUC you can't redistribute them. The
> source code, of course, remains free-as-in-speech as it has always been.
> (It's easy to forget the distinction when you work in Python all day and
> there are no bi
On 16/06/16 23:04, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-06-16 16:04:28 -0400 (-0400), Steve Gordon wrote:
[...]
This is definitely a point worth clarifying in the general case,
but tangentially for the specific case of the RHEL operating
system please note that RHEL is available to developers for free:
On 16 June 2016 at 09:58, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Project team requirements are just guidelines, which are interpreted by
> humans. In the end, the TC members vote and use human judgment rather than
> blind 'rules'. I just want (1) to state that a level playing field is an
> essential part of what
ve Gordon [mailto:sgor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for
> OpenStack projects
>
> - Original Message -
&
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Stanley"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 5:04:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for
> OpenStac
On 2016-06-16 16:04:28 -0400 (-0400), Steve Gordon wrote:
[...]
> This is definitely a point worth clarifying in the general case,
> but tangentially for the specific case of the RHEL operating
> system please note that RHEL is available to developers for free:
>
> http://developers.redhat.com
On 09:35 Jun 14, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> > A few months ago we had the discussion about what "no open core" means in
> > 2016, in the context of the Poppy team candidacy. With our reading at the
> > time we ended up rejecting Poppy partly because i
cessible to
> interested contributors.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -amrith
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:57 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> > Subjec
Thanks Thierry, I did the same (again) :)
-amrith
> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:22 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level pl
Robert Collins wrote:
[...]
From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in the business of providing
open collaboration playing fields in order to build projects to reach the
OpenStack Mission. We collectively provide resources (infra, horizontal
teams, events...) in order to enable that open
Matt Riedemann wrote:
[...]
So is the question does Nova provide a level playing field as a project
because it has drivers that can be deployed and used and tested without
special hardware, i.e. libvirt? Then yes. Or is it Nova doesn't provide
a level playing field because zVM and powervm aren't
This might come across a little trolly/devils advocate, but I mulled
on it for a few days, and I think I need to send it, so... fingers
crossed you can extract some value from my questions.
On 15 June 2016 at 01:57, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just proposed a new requirement for Op
On 6/14/2016 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/
From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in the business
Excerpts from Kyle Mestery's message of 2016-06-15 09:05:59 -0500:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
> >>
Amrith Kumar wrote:
Thanks for writing this up and for the interesting discussion that has come up
in this ML thread.
While I think I get the general idea of the motivation, I think the verbiage
doesn't quite do justice to your intent.
One area which I would like to highlight is the situation
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:57 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for
> OpenStack projects
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just proposed a new requireme
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
>> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
>>
>> https://r
Neil,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM Thierry Carrez
> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> Those are good points. Note that I do not advocate for those projects to
>> be kept closed/private: I'm simply saying that those (open source)
>> projects should not
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> [...]
> Those are good points. Note that I do not advocate for those projects to
> be kept closed/private: I'm simply saying that those (open source)
> projects should not be blessed as "official" and be put under the
> Technical Committee o
Doug Hellmann wrote:
From our perspective, we (designate) currently have a few drivers from
proprietary vendors, and would like to add one in the near future.
The current drivers are marked as "release compatible" - aka someone is
nominated to test the driver throughout the release cycle, and th
Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Some counter arguments for keeping them in:
* It gives the developers of the code that's being plugged into a better view
of how the plugin api is used and what might break if they change it.
* Vendors don't tend to support drivers forever. Often they drop support for a d
On 14/06/2016 17:14, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 10:44 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>> On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
>>> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
>>>
>
Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-06-14 14:44:36 +:
> On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
> > which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
> >
> > https://review.o
On 06/14/2016 10:44 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
>> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/
>>
>
ughellmann.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:15 AM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Require a level playing field for
OpenStack projects
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just proposed a new r
On 14/06/2016 15:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/
>
> From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in t
On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> A few months ago we had the discussion about what "no open core" means in
> 2016, in the context of the Poppy team candidacy. With our reading at the
> time we ended up rejecting Poppy partly because it was interfacing with
> proprietary tec
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-06-14 15:57:10 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
> which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/
>
> From an upstream persp
Hi everyone,
I just proposed a new requirement for OpenStack "official" projects,
which I think is worth discussing beyond the governance review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329448/
From an upstream perspective, I see us as being in the business of
providing open collaboration playing f
30 matches
Mail list logo
