On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com
> > <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
> >     >
> >     >         Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
> >     >         'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron,
> >     because
> >     >         they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or another
> (e.g.
> >     >         having 3rd-party, extending-api,
> integrating-via-plugin-model,
> >     >         etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the
> >     projects.yaml
> >     >         to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any other
> project)
> >     >         once we defined its ontology.
> >     >
> >     >         Thoughts?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     That seems interesting, but given the communities stated goals
> >     >     around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not, adding
> >     >     these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger OpenStack
> Bigger
> >     >     Tent, would be a good thing.
> >     >
> >     >     Thanks,
> >     >     Kyle
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should
> >     stress the
> >     > fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home for
> these
> >     > projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems like
> >     we're
> >     > still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a point
> where
> >     > the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us
> >     make a
> >     > more informed decision compared to the one we can make right now.
> >
> >     Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and would help
> >     make you feel more informed?
> >
> >
> > I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project belongs or
> > doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however we end
> > up calling it :)
>
> OK, that's fine.  Figuring that out is the next step if folks agree with
> Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos.  I'm happy to write up a
> strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations
> around responsibilities and communication.
>
>
What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow the
networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention be one of the
criteria? I look forward to your proposal.

Thanks,
Armando


> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
__________________________________________________________________________
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