I'm making a new thread continuing from

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] BBG edit of new API proposal

I think this warrants its own thread since the discussion doesn't
pertain directly to Stephen's proposal.

What I think what Stephen is trying to say is that in the previous IRC
meeting it was explicitly said that the object model would follow the
API decision.  Meaning, an API that was decided on would then in turn
have its own object model.  Object model diagrams were also requested
with each API proposal.

This most recent meeting happened and a reversal happend.  Now you're
saying the current object model will just be changed somewhat and an API
that is decided on will have to work with that object model.  If that is
the case then 1) there was some wasted work by people, 2) this same
thing can and probably will happen with the API wasting even more time.

Also, you made a comment basically implying that until people actually
contribute code, they're opinion doesn't matter.  That's a great way to
alienate people and lose out on valuable insight from people who may
have a lot of experience.  Also, I think many of us newbies have
contributed in other ways than code.  Sure, there's no metric to measure
these contributions but they should count for something.  Anyway, that
comment is probably insight into what the reason is for this new

In the end, if people feel like their opinion doesn't matter and
anything they do is just a waste a time, most people won't even bother.
I will participate in the neutron-specs blueprints.  I actually do like
that it is a place to actually make decisions, though it is tough to
actually get anything in a good format. 

I'm not sure if all of this is a misunderstanding.  I just think it
should be known of our perception of what has taken place and what is
taking place.  If our perception is way off then I think the reality of
the situation should be made more clear.

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to