Excerpts from Jesse Cook's message of 2016-06-20 16:58:48 +0000: > +1 > > The points about the PWG and TC are worth some consideration. > > From my perspective, I think it would make sense for the PWG to define the > expected behaviors of the system, which would be an input to the > architecture group. The architecture group would define both prescriptive > (where we'd like to be) and descriptive (where we actually are...roughly) > architectures. This would provide both the vision for the future state and > understanding of current state that is necessary for us to all swim in the > same general direction instead of constantly running into each other. I > don't see the architecture as something you push down, but rather something > that helps each contributor ask, "Does that get us closer to where we are > trying to go?" I absolutely think this is something that would provide a > huge benefit to the organization. >
That sounds about right Jesse. Thanks for bringing up the PWG. I definitely don't think an Architecture WG would want to answer "what is OpenStack" alone. More like "What should the OpenStack we described actually look like?". __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
