On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our > infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way, > but we have even imported projects when we've taken over maintenance > (several Oslo libs fall into this category, as do a few others like > mox3 and sqlalchemy-migrate). With the move away from stackforge, > and other changes in that hosting (that were made for good reasons > to make the infra team's lives easier and to make it simpler for a > project to join the set of governed projects), we have removed most > of the other technical signals about which projects are in that > "official" list and which are not. We did not at the same time > remove all of the people in the world who want to understand what > is, and what is not, "in" OpenStack.
i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack' and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo created last weekend' this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent == governance' so when i read 'moving away from "big tent"' i think 'what is this *new* thing we're moving to and if we're redefining this new thing, what for?'. it seems this is not the case. > And for the record, from the TC's perspective, being a governed > project has nothing to do with whether the participants are sponsors > of the foundation. sorry, i probably wasn't clear, i simply noticed that it was a corporate sponsor that was misusing the 'big tent' name so was just thinking we could easily tell them, that's not what it means. wasn't suggesting anything else by sponsor comment. -- gord __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
