-----Original Message----- From: Michael Krotscheck <krotsch...@gmail.com> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: June 21, 2016 at 10:18:25 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > > As you should be, and we all must be. It's not going to happen if we > > just dream it. That's kind of the point. Let's write down a design _for > > the group that writes down designs_. > > > > If I had any confidence that this group would have a significant impact on > making OpenStack more consistent, easy to work on, and easier to build apps > against, I'd be happy to help out. > > The only thing that would give me that confidence is if the WG charter had > a TC-enforced section of: "If you do not implement this *thing* within two > cycles, your project will get kicked out of OpenStack". I don't think that will or *should* ever happen. The documents produced by this WG, to me, would be the set of best practices that should be aimed for, not mandatory. Forcing someone to refactor some complex piece of architecture in their project in < 1 year so the project can remain part of OpenStack seems like someone begging for horrible bugs and regressions in critical behaviour. This is worse than saying "All projects should stop disabling hacking rules in two cycles or they'll stop receiving OpenStack Infra resources for testing." or "All projects need to write new versions of their API just to conform with the API WG." -- Ian Cordasco __________________________________________________________________________ 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
