On 02/08/16 17:29 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Doug Hellmann wrote:[...]Likewise, what if the Manila project team decides they aren't interested in supporting Python 3.5 or a particular greenlet library du jour that has been mandated upon them? Is the only filesystem-as-a-service project going to be booted from the tent?I hardly think "move off of the EOL-ed version of our language" and "use a library du jour" are in the same class. All of the topics discussed so far are either focused on eliminating technical debt that project teams have not prioritized consistently or adding features that, again for consistency, are deemed important by the overall community (API microversioning falls in that category, though that's an example and not in any way an approved goal right now).Right, the proposal is pretty clearly about setting a number of reasonable, small goals for a release cycle that would be awesome to collectively reach. Not really invasive top-down design mandates that we would expect teams to want to resist. IMHO if a team has a good reason for not wanting or not being able to fulfill a common goal that's fine -- it just needs to get documented and should not result in itself in getting kicked out from anything. If a team regularly skips on common goals (and/or misses releases, and/or doesn't fix security issues) that's a general sign that it's not really behaving like an OpenStack project and then a case could be opened for removal, but there is nothing new here.
I think some flexibility on this should be considered (as mentioned by Thierry in the previous paragraph) but I'd be quite worried of extremely special-cased projects and I'd like us to be able to act on this cases. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
