Russell Bryant wrote: > [...] > We now have several new project proposals. However, I propose not > approving any new projects until we have a tagging system that is at > least far enough along to represent the set of criteria that we used to > apply to all OpenStack projects (with exception for ones we want to > consciously drop). Otherwise, I think it's a significant setback to our > project governance as we have yet to provide any useful way to navigate > the growing set of projects. > > The resulting set of tags doesn't have to be focused on replicating our > previous set of criteria. The focus must be on what information is > needed by various groups of consumers and tags are a mechanism to > implement that. In any case, we're far from that point because today we > have nothing.
I agree that we need tags to represent the various facets of what was in the integrated release concept. I'm not sure we should block accepting new project teams until all tags are defined, though. That sounds like a way to stall forever. So could you be more specific ? Is there a clear set of tags you'd like to see defined before we add new project teams ? > I can't think of any good reason to rush into approving projects in the > short term. If we're not able to work out this rich tagging system in a > reasonable amount of time, then maybe the whole approach is broken and > we need to rethink the whole approach. The current plan for the Vancouver Design Summit is to only give space to "OpenStack" projects (while non-OpenStack projects may get space in "ecosystem" sessions outside of the Design Summit). So it's only fair for those projects to file for recognition before that happens. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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