On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, it seems to me that the end-goal of the GBP effort is *actually* to 
> provide a higher-layer API to Neutron that would essentially enable 
> proprietary vendors to entirely swap out all of Neutron core for a new set of 
> drivers that spoke proprietary device APIs.
> If this is the end-goal, it should be stated more clearly, IMO.

I believe that people should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. Is 
there a reason to believe there is some hidden reason behind this proposal ? It 
seems to me that this is uncalled for.

Neutron allows vendors to speak to proprietary device APIs, it was designed to 
do so, AFAIK. It is also possibly to "entirely swap out all of the Neutron 
core"... the proponents of the group based policy didn't have to go through so 
much trouble if that was their intent. As far as i know most plugins talk to a 
proprietary API.

I happen to disagree technically with a couple of choices made by this 
proposal; but the blueprint was approved. Which means that i lost the argument, 
or didn't raise it on time, or didn't argue convincingly... regardless of the 
reason, the time to argue about the goal has passed. The decision of the 
community was to approve the spec and that decision should be respected.

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to