On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jay Faulkner <j...@jvf.cc> wrote:
> However, I get the impression some folks attach additional connotations to 
> this; such as the Ironic core team gaining an implied responsibility to the 
> code or it being seen as a “seal of approval” from Ironic. This means that 
> the primary question at hand to be answered is what does it matter, 
> specifically /in the Baremetal project/ to be included in our governance. Is 
> it simply the benefits provided at a high level by OpenStack, or does it 
> imply additional things. This is the question we have to answer to make a 
> decision about what projects should be under Ironic’s governance and what 
> exactly it means.

This sounds a lot like the Neutron Stadium, which has recently been
(mostly?) dismantled, partially because, as I understand, the PTL no
longer felt able to speak for and have sufficient visibility into the
projects within.  There is not an implied responsibility for the PTL
to be 'in charge', it is explicit.  There are also explicit
expectations regarding team membership overlap among the
'sub-projects' that fall under a big tent project.

> Unless there’s more to it than I understand right now, I’d prefer an 
> open-arms approach to projects being in bare metal governance: as long as 
> they’re willing to follow the 4 opens, and are working toward the goals of 
> the Baremetal project, I’d rather have those projects and their contributors 
> as part of our team than not.

Please talk to the Neutron folk about this and their experiences over
the last couple of years.  This is recent enough that it should be
very easy to recall the reasons for going in, as well as coming out of
the stadium.



Dean Troyer

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to