On 10:27 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56 -0600: > > So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have > > so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative > > decisions that seem … inconsistent over time. > > > > How is this body going to be different? > > > > How will it have any teeth, and not just end up with the standard > > entrenched projects ignoring it? > >
<snip> > Engineers have no effective place to turn to right now when there is > a lack of design. The TC could of course do it, but what I want to do > is have a more open and free-flowing group that are laser focused on > providing support for the design of the system. I want to work out with > the community at large how we add weight to the designs we choose, and > one good option is for the Architecture Working Group to make proposals > to the openstack-specs repo, which the TC would ultimately approve. > That's not a new process, we already have it: > > http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/cross-project.html Thanks for reminding me to update that. These are actually approved by the cross-project spec team now. http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160414-grant-cross-project-spec-team-voting.html -- Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ 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
