Doug, HMS Octavia was a British mine sweeper that served during WW2 figthing German warships and u-boats somewhere in the sea. I therefore believe if you have anything against this name you are secretly a nazi.
Does that work for the Godwin's law call? Salvatore On 23 April 2015 at 22:09, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley > >> <doug...@parksidesoftware.com <mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com>> > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com > >> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com > >> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com> > >>>> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com <mailto: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> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com > >> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> > >>>>> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com> > >> <mailto: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. > >>> > >>> Good question. I think consistency is good, especially when there are > >>> so many of them. It helps make it clear that they're all > >> following some > >>> sort of pattern. Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if > >> needed. > >> > >> There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite > >> active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d > >> be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining. > > > > To be honest, I really don't care about the names. All it takes is some > > pretty easy docs to help people figure out what things are and where > > they live. Making it a recommendation is fine with me. > > > >> > >> If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this > >> mean we've built consensus on the "yes, it makes sense for these to live > >> under Neutron" argument? > > > > Ha. I figured I'd give it at least another day before stirring up more > > debate with a proposal around criteria / responsibilities / expectations. > > Quick, someone invoke Godwin’s law, and then let’s ship this thing. > > doug > > > > > > -- > > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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