On 06/27/2017 09:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> I also think it's fine to rebrand WG to SIG, but we should also be
>> honest that it's mostly a rebrand to consolidate on terminology that k8s
>> and cncf have used that people find easier to understand so it's a way
>> in which openstack is not different than those. Consolidating on terms
>> isn't a bad thing, but it's really a minor part of the workflow issue.
> 
> It's both a consolidation and the signal of a change. If we continued to
> call them "workgroups" I suspect we'd carry some of the traditions
> around them (or would end up calling them new-style WG vs. old-style WG).

I still think I've missed, or not grasped, during this thread how a SIG
functions differently than a WG, besides name. Both in theory and practice.

The API WG doesn't seem like a great example, because it was honestly a
couple of people that were interested in API consumption, but mostly had
a historical view of how the API worked in OpenStack. The transition in
from developers was largely because some reality checking needed to be
put in place, and then people changed roles / jobs, and those showing up
stayed on the dev side.

        -Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to