On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn <egl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> At the end of the day, that's probably going to mean saying No to more >>> things. Everytime I turn around everyone wants the TC to say No to >>> things, just not to their particular thing. :) Which is human nature. >>> But I think if we don't start saying No to more things we're going to >>> end up with a pile of mud that no one is happy with. >> >> That we're being so abstract about all of this is frustrating. I get >> that no-one wants to start a flamewar, but can someone be concrete about >> what they feel we should say 'no' to but are likely to say 'yes' to? >> >> >> I'll bite, but please note this is a strawman. >> >> No: >> * Accepting any more projects into incubation until we are comfortable with >> the state of things again >> * Marconi >> * Ceilometer > > Well -1 to that, obviously, from me. > > Ceilometer is on track to fully execute on the gap analysis coverage > plan agreed with the TC at the outset of this cycle, and has an active > plan in progress to address architectural debt. Yes, there seems to be an attitude among several people in the community that the Ceilometer team denies that there are issues and refuses to work on them. Neither of those things is the case from our perspective. Can you be more specific about the shortcomings you see in the project that aren’t being addressed? > >> Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can focus >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand our >> cross project resources to cover these again. This doesn't mean removing >> anything. >> * Sahara >> * Trove >> * Tripleo > > You write as if cross-project efforts are both of fixed size and > amenable to centralized command & control. > > Neither of which is actually the case, IMO. > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not > necessarily divertable on command. What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend that to other programs and say that each project needs at least one designated QA, Infra, Doc, etc. contact? Doug > >> Yes: >> * All integrated projects that are not listed above > > And what of the other pending graduation request? > > Cheers, > Eoghan > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
