Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-02-16 13:46:50 -0600: > On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: > > > So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We > > changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social > > aspects of projects, and community interactions. Telling a bunch > > of folks that they "are not OpenStack" even though they follow those > > policies is rather distressing. I think we should be looking for > > ways to say "yes" to new projects, rather than "no." > > So if some group creates a 100% open project, and follows all of the Opens, > at what point do we consider relevance to OpenStack itself? How about a 100% > open text editor? Can we add that, since after all OpenStack code is written > with text editors.
We do have a relevance clause. Whether or not Poppy is relevant wasn't part of the discussion, up to this point. > > CDNs are not part of OpenStack, even if some parts of some projects may use > one from time to time. A common interface to CDNs seems to address a problem > that is not really part of what OpenStack does. Can you explain why? Because I see cloud deployments with CDN APIs, and I think that makes it relevant to clouds. I also see it as relevant to deployers of OpenStack who want to support interoperable APIs while still retaining a choice about what backend they implement, which is exactly what the other OpenStack services do with their drivers. > > It's great to want to include people, but I think that there is more to it > than just whether their practices mirror ours. OK. Are we changing what the argument related to Poppy is about, though, to find a different reason to exclude them? Doug __________________________________________________________________________ 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
